Russia invades Ukraine

So... If Germany will not approve this, it will be enormous nail in to the coffin of their reputation. And will prove that this meme is legit. I don't like your attitude at all. Again it's hesitation/doubts and same old 'it may escalate' thing. Such position only prolongs war. It is easy to doubt and contemplate, living in the other part of the world...
Regarding 'ending up with their hands on a few': with all those sanctions, russians are just an apes with a grenade. They cannot produce advanced systems. On time provided military strength will push them out of Ukraine. Only STRENGTH.
 
Last edited:
He still lives in paradigm in which russia is SUPERPOWER. It is a Myth. A busted Myth.
 
Last edited:
And what do you think they are going to do with them? Right now they're entirely incapable of making copies. Sell the know-how to China?
Yeah, that's my primary concern. The electronics packages are advanced as well, and were designed outside of Russian/Chinese industry, so there's a danger there. My secondary concern is that it doesn't do anyone good to underestimate Russia's ability to figure this stuff out. They probably won't, but if a broader war breaks out, I'd rather our side not be rolling in tanks that the Russians are ready to fuck up. All that being said, it's probably a slender risk, and Leopards being the most well known vehicles in the Western arsenal, there's a reason it's them and not Abrams tanks.

He still lives in paradigm in which russia is SUPERPOWER. It is a Myth. A busted Myth.
We still haven't seen Russia fully unleashed in Ukraine, you know. Putin could still order a full mobilization and send a couple million men to the front. Would they be poorly equipped and barely armed? Yes. Would they die in droves? Also yes. But he could break things with the weight of this. Putin doesn't have the ability to fight a US-style war with a couple of divisions and batter around a smaller country - and Ukraine is no Iraq, that's for sure. I don't particularly get worked up about their ability to project force these days. I worry almost entirely about their nuclear capacity, and I worry about putting Putin in a box where the button looks more and more favourable.

You'll scream "there's no such thing as escalation" but the reality is that Russia has escalated this war several times already, and you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your one-sided narrative. This war, in and of itself, is an escalation of ongoing regional struggles that were failing to achieve the Kremlin's objectives. Russia has launched the original invasion, changed to a grinding strategy, mobilized 300,000 soldiers, and launched waves and waves of rocket attacks. They've shifted from trying to win on the ground by trying to grind Ukraine into dust. They've put billions of dollars of munitions into the attack, and they still have the capacity to go bigger.

They could withdraw from their Central Asian/Syrian commitments to bring more professional soldiers to the front. They could release another million draftees. And, more critically, they could use a nuclear weapon. Now, you'll say Putin won't do that - but you have no evidence of it. You have no method of proving what Putin will and won't do. And if NATO isn't planning like it's an option then what's the point?

Whenever Russia is defeated in this war, they have escalated to a new level of attacks. They have changed strategies. And another major defeat like falling short of Kyiv, losing the area around Kharkiv, and having to pull out of Kherson will move the Russians into a more desperate space. NATO is committed to supporting Ukraine no matter how the Russians escalate, but the key is to let them escalate, and then NATO responds.
 
We still haven't seen Russia fully unleashed in Ukraine, you know. Putin could still order a full mobilization and send a couple million men to the front. Would they be poorly equipped and barely armed? Yes. Would they die in droves? Also yes. But he could break things with the weight of this. Putin doesn't have the ability to fight a US-style war with a couple of divisions and batter around a smaller country - and Ukraine is no Iraq, that's for sure. I don't particularly get worked up about their ability to project force these days. I worry almost entirely about their nuclear capacity, and I worry about putting Putin in a box where the button looks more and more favourable.
This is exactly why Ukraine must receive a lot of modern weapons from the West. Because if they will not have enough, russia will continue and continue and continue. TO DETER. War is already going. There's no other options. NONE. russia must be stopped on the battlefield. putin agrees to negotiate only if seized regions will remain with russsia. That is completely unacceptable. It would mean that his war has succeeded. so russia must lose on all fronts. To do so Ukraine must receive a lot of weapons.
Again about escalation - it is war. You cannot stop defending, when aggressor threatens you to use prohibited move. The West has warned putin, that if he would use tactical nukes, he would be primary target of theirs. Lavrov already moaned about this option. By your logic, maybe we shouldn't help Ukraine, because putin can 'escalate'/ use nukes. It is too late for this already. Madman is already on the loose. He must and he will be stopped. Even at the risk of nuclear war. Because now it is problem of USA, Britain, Germany, France, China, India... - countries who belong to nuclear club. In that sense escalation already happened - when putin started the war. Now it's only routine. All options are clear and must be dealt with.
And putin destroys Ukraine's infrastructure because.... Because he can, because the West still has not supplied enough defensive weapons to Ukraine. Go to square one: war is already happening. There's no options to negotiate, till russian army boots are on the Ukraine's ground. (This is official position of Ukraine's government) Period.
So... only by sending enough heavy weapons to Ukraine this madness will stop. When Ukraine will seize it's territory. When their military superiority will be unmatched.
All doubts and fears cannot be excuse for doing nothing. People already dying and will die even more if the West will not act.
 
Last edited:
Regarding meme about Germany :D

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Kuleba frustrated with German weapon transfers:
“It's always a similar pattern: first they say no, then they fiercely defend their decision, only to say yes in the end. We’re still trying to understand why the German government is doing this to itself”

F*k. Germany gonna Germany:
Politico reports Germany will ignore Poland’s, the UK’s & Finland’s call for a Leopard 2 coalition for until USA takes the lead. It sounds like there won’t be Leopards until the U.S. sends Abrams. A German spokesman says the UK’s announcement doesn’t change Germany’s stance.
Scholz’s spokesperson said on Wednesday that plans by London to deliver British-made Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine won’t change the position of the German government, which has so far rejected growing calls for Berlin to hand powerful German Leopard 2 tanks to Kyiv.

What are they doing? Exactly, they are prolonging the war.
 
Last edited:
LooseCannon, I think we differently interpret/approach the word escalation. I don't deny that russia escalated to a new levels of attacks in this war. But it is in the nature of the war itself, isn't it? When someone is losing, he will try to do all in his powers to make other side of the conflict to change it's stance.
My point is, when westerners (even pro Ukrainian) use this word, I and many eastern europeans perceive it as a call to succumb to putin's will. In that sense, talks about escalation are definitely pro Kremlin, works in russia's favor. Because, if you fear escalation ---> you go to negotiate with a murderer ---> and will obey to his demands to keep occupied territories, for example. Or, you fear escalation ---> you won't give tanks to Ukraine, whom people already dying. And will die more so, because they have not enough weapons to defeat aggressor. It is logic conclusion.
Simply, one must ignore russia's threats and continue to help Ukraine to win. That's all.
And Ukraine will win only then, when they will have enough weapons. But uh oh, some countries still have some fears and reservations and conflict continues to blossom. Back to square one. There will be no other ending, than defeat on the battlefield. Unless the West would completely abandon Ukraine. And that would be the way to a new autoritarian world order and many BIG problems for the West.

one more... there would be no new levels of escalation if Ukraine would be conquered in three days. It would be good? I beg to differ. Ukrainians also. By their polls around 80-95% are against any concessions to russia. Case is closed. So, f* escalation. russia uses/will use it regardless.
 
Last edited:
hey could withdraw from their Central Asian/Syrian commitments to bring more professional soldiers to the front.

I think this is one of the most likely next steps. Assad and Erdogan are about to negotiate, which was completely unthinkable a few years ago. This would suggest that Putin may be ready to hand over Russian duties to Turkey (informally, unofficially and all, but still).
I'm not so sure about Central Asia, because things there aren't yet to Putin's liking. I wouldn't be surprised if we heard about some sort of new settlement there within the next few months, though.
All in all, I would expect a new major offensive in late February or early March, and I don't know if Ukraine is prepared for it.
 
LooseCannon, I think we differently interpret/approach the word escalation. I don't deny that russia escalated to a new levels of attacks in this war. But it is in the nature of the war itself, isn't it? When someone is losing, he will try to do all in his powers to make other side of the conflict to change it's stance.
My point is, when westerners (even pro Ukrainian) use this word, I and many eastern europeans perceive it as a call to succumb to putin's will. In that sense, talks about escalation are definitely pro Kremlin, works in russia's favor. Because, if you fear escalation ---> you go to negotiate with a murderer ---> and will obey to his demands to keep occupied territories, for example. Or, you fear escalation ---> you won't give tanks to Ukraine, whom people already dying. And will die more so, because they have not enough weapons to defeat aggressor. It is logic conclusion.

Why don't you follow this logic through to the end? Your theory is "the West must do everything it can to stop Russia" but even you stop before the logical end of that. Because the logical end of that is "NATO should join the war officially and invade Russia". And the logical Russian response to that is "use nuclear weapons". Even you won't say this, because you know how foolish it sounds. Every time the war gets more intense, regardless of Western intervention, the likelihood of desperation in the Kremlin goes up, and the more desperate Putin becomes, the more likely he is to use a nuke. And you acknowledge it, or you'd be demanding the full-throated invasion of Russia. Unless you can say with absolute certainty that he won't do it, then you can't risk that. Kyiv is a city of three million people and they're under more danger than any city in the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis. You'll claim he won't do it, but you're not sure, or else you'd be advocating for the full invasion of Russia.

There's a ton of other reasons to not give everything to Ukraine. Ukrainians have to be trained in the use of new equipment, which takes months and pulls men off the line. What if we give them everything and Russia wins? Then we have nothing left. And countries still have political needs at home, too. Most countries are giving a huge amount.

Furthermore, you claim that you are using logic, but you say "if you fear escalation" means "you negotiate with a murderer" and finally "will obey his demands to keep occupied territories". These are not logical equivalencies. And I can prove it.

We negotiate with murderers all the time, both at the individual level and at the national level. Negotiators talk down people who take hostages all the time. It's the only way to get it done without everyone dying. We're negotiating with a murderer right now, when we negotiate with Erdogan to get Sweden and Finland into NATO. We negotiate with murderers every time we talk to China. At the end of the day, the war can only end with negotiation, and whoever is on the other end in Russia will be a murderer. There is no situation where Ukraine forces Russia to the table with a gun. It's not possible. Ukraine cannot parade through the streets of Moscow. Therefore the only way that Russia agrees to end the war is by choosing to come to the table. Negotiating is not a crime.

Your assumption that we will allow Russia to keep occupied territories is also false. Russia has already floated that and it's been roundly rejected, everywhere along the way. It's not going to happen. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is paramount in the negotiating process. I don't even think a status quo ante bellum will be sufficient - Russia will have to withdraw from Kherson and Crimea. Zelenskyy has been adamant that this is the goal and I think he'll get it in the end.

Anyway, this is long enough. You are starting at gremlins in the dark when it comes to negotiations. Propose a solution that doesn't involve negotiations and I'll let you know if it's possible. When it comes to escalation, you claim that you're drawing logical connections and you're not. You are ignoring the most obvious solution, because you know what'll happen. You simply refuse to assign any risk to any other actions. You have no grasp of what's going on other than Russia bad, Ukraine good. No political knowledge, no appreciation of risk, no understanding of how nations resolve war and conflict.

I think this is one of the most likely next steps. Assad and Erdogan are about to negotiate, which was completely unthinkable a few years ago. This would suggest that Putin may be ready to hand over Russian duties to Turkey (informally, unofficially and all, but still).
I'm not so sure about Central Asia, because things there aren't yet to Putin's liking. I wouldn't be surprised if we heard about some sort of new settlement there within the next few months, though.
All in all, I would expect a new major offensive in late February or early March, and I don't know if Ukraine is prepared for it.
If they can settle things in Central Asia, they're getting their top guys out of there as fast as they can. But I have a suspicion that Ukraine will beat them to the punch in February. The mobile force they used in Kharkiv has been off the map since Novemberish and hasn't responded to recent Russian attacks. That tells me they're putting a rock back in their fist.
 
This man is serving as the adviser to the Ukraine's president. He does not speak about negotiations or concessions. Ukraine knows what they are doing. The West, once again, must step up and to speed up their game.

from other news, russia is facing shortage of shells. the sooner Ukraine will receive tanks and other heavy weapons, the sooner all will be over.

Perun wrote:" All in all, I would expect a new major offensive in late February or early March, and I don't know if Ukraine is prepared for it."
LooseCannon, this problem would be solved by giving more guns to Ukraine, or by expressing concern of possible escalation?

LooseCannon I see no point in arguing with you. All you say is fine, but what ARE YOU PROPOSING??? War is here, it won't go away. Actions must be taken.
And for the last time: putin will not use nukes. he knows that would be the end for him. He is not Hitler like figure, more of a mafia boss. Power and luxury life, and oppression of the weaker. When Ukraine will be armed enough, russia will back down and there will be a change of the leader. You will see.

I did not had in mind NATO joining the war. Ukraine will do fine. But if NATO will join, war will be over in several days-weeks. Period. (Without even invading russia)
Minister of Foreign Affairs of my country:
 
Last edited:
And for the last time: putin will not use nukes. he knows that would be the end for him.

Yeah, and you are so dead certain of that because...?

Let me ask you something: Do you know what the legal ramifications are if Putin uses nukes in Ukraine?

I'll give you a moment to think about it.


None.

There is no legal mechanism that goes into place, because Ukraine is not part of any formal alliance, and because we never signed a treaty that would say a country using nukes would get blasted away by the rest of the world. How would this be the end for Putin? Please explain this.

EDIT: And by "Please explain this", I don't mean "Post something some random guy said on Twitter", but explain what exactly makes you think so and what you mean by "the end for him".
 
Because the West/USA informed russia's officials and putin already (behind the curtains) that if he will use nukes in Ukraine he will be toast. He will become the main target. And the West will destroy (with conventional arms) russian army on the Ukraine's territory and will drown Black Sea's fleet. This info circulated some time ago. And Lavrov not long ago dropped verbal hints that indeed the west wants to kill our leader, how terrible is that, something along these lines.
Regarding 'legal mechanism' - if putin will use nukes, USA and Britain will act for sure, because it creates precedent and bad model, which should be not encouraged.
 
Because the West/USA informed russia's officials and putin already (behind the curtains) that if he will use nukes in Ukraine he will be toast. He will become the main target. And the West will destroy (with conventional arms) russian army on the Ukraine's territory and will drown Black Sea's fleet. This info circulated some time ago. And Lavrov not long ago dropped verbal hints that indeed the west wants to kill our leader, how terrible is that, something along these lines.

Who is "The West/USA"? Who said it, on whose authority, through what medium? Was it on a phone call? A secret meeting between diplomats? Or was it just something some guy belched out on Twitter? That makes a difference. Lavrov on the other hand is a paranoid fanatic. He will say anything to rile people up in hatred, even if he contradicts himself the next sentence. I'm surprised you see any value in his words.


Regarding 'legal mechanism' - if putin will use nukes, USA and Britain will act for sure, because it creates precedent and bad model, which should be not encouraged.

Speculation. You don't know what they will do. I don't know it. We've never been in such a situation before. There will undoubtedly be a response, but whether any "western" government is ready to risk a nuclear war with Russia is doubtful, and it is possible that this is what Putin is or will be banking on.
 
We all saw what happend in Dnipro today.... If after these events The West will remain impotent, satiated m*kers, I will curse them like that woman till the seventh generation. And if someone will blabber once more about escalation..... *********** insert here most attrocious swearing words, sentences and statements. russia must be destroyed. ATACMS for Ukraine!
 
Azas, you left the most recent questions aimed at you unanswered, do you honestly expect people to engage with your ramblings now?
 
I am tired to go in circles.
If you haven't heard that info, i cannot help you. I don't collect it. Regarding USA's warning for putin: i heard from a Andrey Piontkovsky, russian political writer and analyst. He lives in Washington. He speaks on Ukrainian channels, I watch on youtube.

(you better pray, Scholz not to f*k up regarding Leopards next week :D)

One more thought... I understand that my 'ramblings' irritate. But there's some truth to that and You know it. You know that your country and The West as a whole, does not enough to stop the war. This is the ultimate truth. But putin has nuclear guns! Yes, and your country ignored 2014 events and build pipeline for cheap gas. Nothing personal just bussiness.
Perun, I have nothing against You. Zero. But we all see that many thing in Europe must be improved.
 
Last edited:
I am tired to go in circles.

It's only going around in circles to you because all you do is read some random people's Twitter posts and then think you're informed.

If you haven't heard that info, i cannot help you. I don't collect it.

Then don't cite it.

Regarding USA's warning i heard from a Andrey Piontkovsky, russian political writer and analyst. He lives in Washington. He speaks on Ukrainian channels, I watch on youtube.

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. Your "Because the West/USA informed russia's officials and putin already (behind the curtains) that if he will use nukes in Ukraine he will be toast" or your "if putin will use nukes, USA and Britain will act for sure, because it creates precedent and bad model, which should be not encouraged."?
 
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. Your "Because the West/USA informed russia's officials and putin already (behind the curtains) that if he will use nukes in Ukraine he will be toast" or your "if putin will use nukes, USA and Britain will act for sure, because it creates precedent and bad model, which should be not encouraged."?
Both.
There was one Blinken (If I am correct) speech, where he mentioned 'catastrophic consequences for russia if nukes will be used in Ukraine'. Piontkovsky gave analysis after that speech.
 
Back
Top