fireship4

Liberalism is so broad, it must be cherry-picked! And I believe only a minority of branches might demand support for your listed positions.

Yes but if they were of the same mind as Hamas, and had a lust for their blood, they would have flown them back. Do you see the difference? I know there were plenty racists that joined up, do you see them doing that in a million years?!

He was saying it wasn't true. Don't know anything about him, didn't have anything to say, couldn't be bothered to refute your statistically weak output. Allow me to clarify: Nonsense. They are simply the most capable. And Israel is dismantling a terrorist junta whose only purpose is to make fat stacks and kill Jews - and they have a decent amount of support both in the middle east and increasingly in the West. The IDF go to quite some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Did you see the US parade the bodies of Iraqi teens through the streets of New York? The West is technologically and ideogically and systematically superior, and if they are successful in their wars it is largely because of this. Were hamas able or intending to create a society that could sustain scientific endeavor, it could bomb Israel from space! If Russia had not been opposed by the West, it would have taken Europe, etc. etc. As far as the last 20 years goes, I suppose the militarism you speak of refers to Afghanistan and Iraq? Both under the aegis of one event (though the waters were perhaps muddied on the latter) and both in the same area of the world. One fought a medievally backward religious regime, the other a rogue dictator who regularly attacked his neighbours. But why stick to the last 20 years? Don't you want to extend it to the cold war when the West was overhyping the Soviet Union to increase defense spending? Do delight us with you knowledge of these people, your analysis of the neocon movement, and why it is bad, and how it can be charactarised as "expansionism/imperialism". Dictators have no recourse to justice, only to strength - there is nothing that protects them as far as another stronger country coming along and entirely legitimately turning them into a fine mist. You are just using emotional language with no content. Did you see Victoria Nuland running around the middle east killing babies in a dream or something? Who the hell is that anyway? All I know about Kagan is that his dad did a really good course at Yale on Ancient Greece, and that he wrote a bunch of books on the subject. Make an argument, an actual argument, based on something solid. Maybe start small. Help or don't help, that was the choice - they were going to resist no matter what. Dogwalking them into the conflict... who are you f'ing John Pilger? Is everything the US's fault? Russia invades Ukraine, there is a good case to be made they would have commited some kind of genocide had they been successful. They resist this actual imperialism, the US/UK/NATO helps them, but not enough for you, and you know why that is, because you have tapped the Western hivemind datacentre via Alex Jones and the cocaine residue you managed to sift out of your carpet this morning. Answer: the US cynically sacrifices Ukraine for it's benefit?! Wow such Russian take! Don't see much disagreement here. I mean, moving into separatist regions... like they're doing in Ukraine right now? And pray tell, what major partisan efforts are currently ongoing in those Russian-held regions? After Afghanistan and Chechnya, I don't think Russians have much interest or desire to 'occupy' places they are not wanted. They want to bully and flex, fighting isn't really their forte but anyone who understands Russia knew this already, though a thousand videos of military disasters is pretty sufficient evidence just as well. You don't see why invading and holding in a seperatist region is different from a total invasion? And I don't know what's going on in SO and Abkhazia (they are probably not allowing many reporters in to nose aroun), but a resistance is harder to maintain when you have no overland route for supplies, the sea is full of Ruskies, the people in the land who were against secession were driven out, and the milita guys fighting you have help from the Russian military and SF stationed in your country. "I was correct": you keep saying it, but saying it doesn't make it true. You prefer the West to **** or get off the pot is what you're saying? Because you assess that what they are doing won't work? Well so what? Your opinion is worth as much as your analysis reveals: a fart in the wind. Bring some insight, tell us something we don't know, show us your model of what you know the US to be doing on what timescale and how it might be best to force Ukraine to negotiate away land to Russia under threat of withdrawing assistance. I should have had my breakfast by now you tiresome fellow!

Are you writing from the early 2000s? Hello! Please tell my dad to shave my head next time he cuts my hair!

Speculation, not obvious, just a statement with no context. Schroeder, Putin's personal friend? To some extent responsible for Germany's energy dependence on Russia? And peace on what terms? Nonsense. They are simply the most capable. And Israel is dismantling a terrorist junta whose only purpose is to make fat stacks and kill Jews - and they have a decent amount of support both in the middle east and increasingly in the West. The IDF go to quite some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Did you see the US parade the bodies of Iraqi teens through the streets of New York? What information? A neocon should want to give Americans something to believe in by fighting for a democratic state abroad if they followed someone like Leo Strauss. In what context? "We were wrong to help defend this country we promised to defend against an invading force of barbarians"? "Should have just saved the money and let them rot behind a new iron curtain"? In Georgia, Russia moved mostly through two separatist regions which it supported, and has since run directly. The goverment of Georgia remained intact. If the men you refer to had changed the government by force, they would indeed have needed an occupation force, to keep order and resist the inevitable efforts of the population and military at reversing such, and then to carry out "de-nazification" (the destruction of Ukrainian national identity, and notions of identification with Western ideals) something that is now obvious. If they didn't understand that then, it was because they expected Ukrainians to fold like Russians have been taught to, and that their government wasn't real anyway, just a US/Anglo puppet, like the Russians have in their proxies. Your post has unsound reasoning and does not read like the words of someone who knows what they are talking about, rather someone who has a lens they view each event through which you fight for. It is fine to just use logic or google stuff to -refute- statements, I would say that can work out OK if you did that properly, but you could actually commit yourself to creating some workable models which bear some resemblance to how things actually work in real life and learning some in-depth history on a subject. What you are doing here is just advocating a straw-man image of the West through cherry-picking and non-arguments.

"Exist" in this case.

Ex-PM David Cameron is new UK Foreign Secretary after cabinet re-shuffle: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/13/david-cameron-returns-to-uk-government-as-foreign-secretary

I believe he had recently made some anti-war comments.

The attacks were not at the ship as far as has been publicised: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/uss-carney-shot-down-more-missiles-drones-over-longer-period

"Хуйзнаетtalkers/Huiznaettalkers"? "Хуйз нает": "Hui zna-et": "Who the f*ck knows".

https://nitter.net/

Your last post was February 28th 2022, and it has been pinned up on the right of the thread under 'popular posts' since then, Everything OK now? Relatively speaking?

Yes I get the feeling if and when their systems of destabilisation break down, things across the West might start to work a little better. On the other hand, constant stresses and criticism do encourage us to firm up our ideals and seek workable answers to difficult questions and social conflicts. EDIT: Although China is a bigger threat in other ways, I don't feel they would have the same effect in the propaganda sphere, off the top of my head it would be more about building relationships and economic leverage/bribery.

https://news.yahoo.com/prigozhin-arrives-st-petersburg-takes-092701789.html Prigozhin makes a quick visit to St. Petersburg pick up some confiscated firearms?!

Er, I don't think you get sent to the Hague for breaking a voluntary treaty.

I found the episode, if it's of interest: Mark Galeotti - Sat, 29 Apr 2023 - In Moscow's Shadows 98: Dogs of War (and Racoons) https://www.buzzsprout.com/1026985/12746196-in-moscow-s-shadows-98-dogs-of-war-and-racoons.mp3 Wherein, with regard to the Russian constitution, article 5, @ 00:04:10: He makes the point that Wagner was not in violation of the spirit of this law, and then moves on to Article 259 of the Russian criminal code, @ 00:05:20: He suggests territory may be the relevant point, and refers to the preceding annexations of territory, and that they (were) acting on behalf of the state. He does make a similar point earlier in the program. It brings to mind two factors I've read about here and there: that Russia is very bureaucratic, with many laws that are actually followed, and doing things by the book can be important for avoiding blame; and that things may be illegal but selectively enforced. This is something that is generally frowned upon in a country where the rule of law is seen as important. It seems plausible to me, for a system to work positively, laws should only be enacted if they can be enforced, and then they must be enforced, in part to avoid it becoming selective. For the similar reasons laws should be unambiguous.

Mark Galleoti read out the relevant law in an episode of 'In Moscow's Shadow's', and IIRC, he made the point that it says such structures are illegal if they act against the state. Either you are mixing your metaphors or I will avoid Polish cheese. Perhaps it could ferment some ideas, or curdle some suspicions

Full translation of Putin speech (with non-subtitled video at the bottom) via @wartranslated: https://nitter.net/wartranslated/status/1672508593969549312#m

Russia should do everyone a favour and use the threat of civil war as an excuse to pull everyone out. Before it isn't an excuse.

This thesis on "Auftragstaktik" takes its title (Order out of Chaos) from it: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36719003.pdf

The video shows the fighter approaching from the rear (the drone's propeller is a pusher type).

It looks just like him!

Unfortunately, the nukes are all over the shop: https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/facilities/cis-facilities.html

Apart from the very difficult question of how to directly secure a state's nuclear arsenal in such a scenario, perhaps the first measure of a mature state on the brink of such might be to destroy their 'nuclear codes'. Presumably the weapons could be re-enabled, but that would take time, and direct access.

It's hard to pin down what's what in the video, it's not for sure that the clips of the BTR are from the same engagement. There are a few explosions, a lot of tracer, and a lot of dust puffs around the trench. If it was the same engagement, then the impacts are perhaps from the coax, as they are too frequent for the rate of fire the cannon is shown using (the article's second video shows it capable of a higher rate). If they are 30mm then most of them are duds or haven't armed. The explosions could be 30mm, they looked a little big, but without more footage it's hard to say more than that guy better have ear protection, and has a set of balls requiring a gun-case when not at the front.