kraze
-
Posts
1,362 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by kraze
-
-
16 hours ago, billbindc said:
This approach was quite common amongst Americans before the end of WWII. I don't blame them and I won't blame you however much I abhor it. And I abhor it because it's exactly the kind of thinking that you are and should be fighting against. In the event, wiser heads prevailed and we took a softer course. As a result, our enemies then became, almost unthinkably, some of our best Allies. That's maybe something you should consider.
Why can't Israel just live in peace with people next door and love thy neighbor? Those abhorring Israelis shouldn't be fighting against people wanting to murder all of them - they should be fighting against the intolerance to being murdered for centuries.
Seriously why is nobody using this argument against Israel having bad relations with their insane, genocidal neighbors?
-
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
So we are pretty much going to have to agree to disagree - I think your view of things is a little overly binary. We seem to disagree on "worse". Your position is that a functioning Russia is worse for Ukraine, of which there is ample evidence. My view is that a reduced and boxed in, but functioning Russia with Ukraine within NATO (we took Turkey for fewer reasons than Ukraine currently has) is the way ahead.
Turkey isn't a country any nuclear country will ever fight over. We aren't getting into NATO because we are that country. You have a whole NATO member wanting to occupy our territories and having an agreement with Russia to do it, remember? Hungarian vote NO alone will be enough to make sure we are alone.
QuoteBased on your posts, it appears you are arguing that imperial aggressiveness is deeply embedded within Russian culture, which may have some kernels of truth - I personally think you are way over simplifying the Russian cultural construct and are very broadly painting every Russian with the same brush, so to speak.
Not me, just historical facts being cold and cruel. There have been zero times when russian culture showed any humane traits, instead it produces non-stop wars, misery and suffering for literally everyone around them. There's literally no indication that russians will change this time either. Their whole population is absolutely pro-war (as long as most aren't fighting or suffering consequences personally - but that's another story) and shows no signs of wanting to change.
QuoteMuch of what you are proposing is the exact same thing back onto the Russian people - a collapse that erases their identity.
Do you know what a "russian identity" even is? 'russian' is not an ethnicity or nationality. It's just an artificial construct designed to obliterate identities and make everyone a grey mass without history, ethnicity and roots. Now buryats, kalmyks, chechens, dagestanians, mordvins, tatars, tuvins and about 20 other nationalities and ethnicities of the empire are... nationalities and ethnicities. So them having separate countries is bad how? Sure Chechnya becoming free will erase their "russian" identity. Because it will just make them have their own, finally.
QuoteSo many of those refugees are going to be elderly and women/children. It would appear your position is to group them in with the "murders and rapists" and let them freeze to death along the Ukrainian border. This is very tough talk but you can see my point here (or perhaps cannot, which is the problem); however, in my experience, more atrocities do not make things better.
Those "elderly" and "women" are responsible for murdering our elderly and women and even our children. So why exactly should we give them free ticket from responsibility? Their husbands and children came here to murder us in cold blood - and now we should give them warm welcome so that they or their descendants will get to kill us a lot easier when they get the chance since they got no consequences? You really don't see anything horribly wrong with your argument?
QuoteYour narrative that you are putting on this forum only serves an end state that will wash all that good away - likely when you need it most.
If my narrative of making sure my kids aren't getting killed by russians because I'm not pretending russians aren't murdering my friends (they killed two yesterday, as it turned out) - lets my kids survive - then so be it. I get that it's very easy for you to sit in a peaceful country, while trying to put equal signs between our refugees and russian "refugees" (who on multiple occasions beat up our refugees abroad without consequence) - but it will not change the reality. And the reality is - it's either us or them. There's no other way - russians made sure it is like that. Go convince them to stop, why are you convincing me I should love them for it?
-
2 hours ago, Butschi said:
Would you kindly elaborate what you mean by that? What would you have done differently?
Germany lost the war but it wasn't occupied (or at least completely isolated) to ensure it won't go about it again. Naturally you had Germans wishing for revenge and giving all the power to the first guy screaming about restoring the imperial glory and avenging Germany. That ended with Germany being one of the key starters of WW2.
Next time the mistake wasn't repeated and Germany is what it is now.
Similarly Russia wasn't punished for starting WW2 in an alliance with Germany and stealing half of Europe which led to Cold War and a lot of suffering for many many many countries. Granted there were absolutely objective reasons for that (way way too many casualties to start another major war). But in 1991 it was possible to finally end Russia - instead not only it wasn't ended - but even USA itself tried to keep USSR intact - and now we have a new Hitler screaming about restoring the imperial glory and avenging Russia.
The only good thing is that this Hitler is an absolutely atrocious clone that is too incompetent to become like his role model.
The next one may not be - if the mistake is repeated again. Empires have to end and this is the last one.
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ok then, well good luck with that then. So you plan is for the west to support until Russia shatters and then Ukraine ride it out as a lone state? Unfortunately Ukraine does not appear in the Bible so I am not sure western support will last.
We won't be accepted into NATO because Germany and Hungary (and I'm sure many other countries) will block it - because having Ukraine in NATO means a constant threat of war with Russia which is hell bent on taking it at all cost - a lot simpler and safer to just play a support role. Same as with Israel.
Not to mention Hungary still wants to grab some territories and is pissed it failed to do so due to russians messing it all up.
So I'm just being realistic here. We will be a lone state, at least for a few more decades - if Russia finally ceases existing. NATO is just a pipe dream even if Ukraine does every single thing it is required to do to join.
Quote“A shattered Russia with an unsecured nuclear arsenal vs a lone state in a sea of people who can only agree on the fact that they hate you.” Is not a geopolitical solution. Neither is hoping that making their dysfunction worse or them being pushed deeper into crisis will somehow lead to them forgetting you.
They will never forget about us. But they sure won't be able to do anything about it. Having nukes matters a lot more when you have conventional means to protect them or yourself, but when you are a small remnant with awful defense infrastructure - nah. Sure you can fire one off - but you'll be smashed really fast on the ground.
We already accepted Russia will do everything it can to destroy us - with all the tools it has. But reaching Moscow is a lot harder than reaching some Sheettown, the capital of West Fartstate 200km away. Remnants of Russia not having a shared border with us will be much less inclined to fight because they will have another "separatist" enemy in between.
QuoteYour proposed strategy will have set conditions for long term direct threats to your nation without any real mitigating mechanisms against increasing regional insecurity. This is extremely bad for business, so western economic investment is going to be very difficult. Reconstruction is also at risk, as you note terrorism will be a significant threat in your country. If these conditions create enough significant humanitarian crisis you could waves of former-Russian refugees try and get into Ukraine - which you can of course turn away by force, completely losing any strategic narrative high ground you have.
Right now there's a huge empire invading us and obliterating every critical infrastructure object it can reach. It mobilizes an army of million rapists and torturers with an intent of murdering all of us once and for all. Some local terrorism possibly threatening reconstruction somewhere down the road being a worse option? Really?
Russian "refugees" are already not welcome in any EU country that borders them and I don't see much drama about it - I think we will manage just as well. Especially since not letting in proven rapists and murderers that happily did genocide on us is "moral high ground"-free card in itself.
QuoteI have to say that your isolationist entirely uncompromising view of the future sounds a lot like the narratives coming out of Russia itself, just pointed in the other direction.
Not Russia, Israel. The key difference is that russian existential threat is made up, while Israel's is very very real.
-
2 hours ago, FancyCat said:
Kraze, forgive me if you explained already, how are we supposed to take apart Russia or control their government when they have nukes?
Russia will take itself apart if it completely loses this war - e.g. no "middle ground" (aka temporary armistice) that Scholz, Orban and Co push for so hard.
All you'll have to do is just talk to multiple governments instead of one.
Thinking that nukes somehow end up in unpredictable hands is pointless - because they already are.
-
15 hours ago, DerKommissar said:
1991 wasn't as well-guided as 2023 could be. Instead of clowns like Gorbachev/Yeltsin/Putin, we could put in (pun unintended) trained operatives.
Use the propaganda machine and repression like Pinochet, to ensure that they swallow the medicine.
puppet government will not work in Russia. Even ignoring how bloody it will be putting it in there - it will get dethroned almost immediately by people wanting revenge aka "RU Nats".
Because Russia is an empire, it's not a single country. Empires can never be puppeteered because that's not how they got to be an empire in the first place.
-
13 hours ago, The_Capt said:
So a lot of problems with your theory here:
- Belarus has about 10 million people and as far as this war they have not done Ukraine any favours. I am not sure population base is a key metric of how much damage a nation can do to Ukraine.
Belarus is a vassal of a big empire adding those 10 mil to the total pool. That's a flawed argument.
If it was just Belarus invading Ukraine - the outcome would've been predictable... and faster.
Quote- A few 10 million population countries with a serious hate on for Ukraine - and I am pretty sure there will be that factor, can be problematic.
Those few 10 million pop countries will also be hating each other's guts and that works wonders. See Israel's neighbors.
And make no mistake - we are going to be the new Israel here. And we won't be in NATO exactly for that reason, let's be realistic.
QuoteYou are very likely to get non-state, or state sponsored terrorism against Ukraine for a long time.
We will be getting that regardless, Russia will never stop, except having a whole empire is much worse because otherwise at least it will be state sponsored terrorism akin to that of DPRK instead of akin to that of huge empire. Much more manageable. Any Ukrainian that cares - understands that it's a permanent war from here on. And fighting broken up pieces of empire is a lot easier, historical facts.
Quote"Too busy dying from hunger", ok so we are talking about using a humanitarian disaster to keep whatever is left of Russians in line? Would that include withholding food aid like a Somalia warlord?
No, just literally what I said. If it so happens that remnants of Russia will be too busy dealing with their own breakup crisis (whatever it may be, e. g. food) - it will prevent them from killing their neighbors. And that's a huge win.
QuoteNo, it is not "Ok" for Moldovia or Georgia to suffer but it is how things are - have you ever been to Africa? However, I am not sure breaking Russia will really fix that, it could make it worse as the entire region falls into anarchy.
No it won't. There's nothing to fall into anarchy over. There are a bunch of territories occupied by Russia. No Russia = no occupation. Simple as that. In this whole region of planet Earth Russia alone generates 100% of all problems.
QuoteRussia is definitely a problem, do not get me wrong; however, I have yet to hear a coherent solution to the post-conflict solution either within Ukraine or in Russia. You have been advocating for the complete dissolution of Russia pretty early on, and frankly I get the impulse, but I see a lot of "worse" here, and not much that actually fixes anything.
Keeping a warmongering empire alive - is the worst possible thing that can ever be.
It's equal to keeping Germany post-WWI alive. Empires do not take lightly to being beaten.
-
11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:
Japan and Germany both were nations, and therefore we were not "nation building" but revitalizing.
Japan and Germany are also both absolutely great examples of what happens when you merely want to make empires "owe their existence to you". They do not feel grateful or intimidated - but they certainly feel like punching you in the face once they get the chance - and that's literally what they did.
Heck even Russia post-WWI is just as great of an example. In twenty years it started a new World War together with those two butthurt empires - because the West tried to "diplomacy" it into obedience.
And similarly to an axis of evil of the yore (Nazi Germany - Imperial Japan - USSR) today we have an embryo of a new one - Iran - Russia - China.
-
8 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:
They will if they owe their existence to the West, and with a axe over their head -- if they want to think otherwise.
1991 knocked and said hello.
They did it once because it worked, they will do it again because it will work.
Because you want peace and russians want war. That's a huge and a very important difference.
-
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:
So what are you proposing here? We have talked at length of the risks of Russia collapsing - you may very well wind up with a rogue WMD in Kyiv (I am sure there will be those with a grudge).
Even if you could break Russia up into sub-states, how can you guarantee one or more of them won't start another war if it is so deeply embedded in the Russian state as you suggest.
Because a 140 mln empire attacking a smaller country is much more dangerous than a 10 mln region attacking a full-fledged country it has 0 chance of ever occupying, while also being busy fighting other neighbors.
Or maybe, being so small and broken up, they will be too busy dying from hunger to even care about attacking someone.
I'd take a risk of unknown over a guarantee of known any day - because Russia coming back for revenge is absolutely, 100%, guaranteed. It's set in stone. It's been like that for 300 years and nothing ever changes. And this time it will be Russia that learned its mistakes.
Russia not being there also means other countries all around them get a chance at being free. Or are you telling me it's OK for Moldova and Georgia to keep suffering after 30 years of it - because an illusion of "business as usual" is more important?
-
39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I am very confident that reparations and war crimes prosecution are going to be a critical condition for lifting of sanctions and re-normalization.
As to "another Ukraine in 5-10", I am not sure what you are arguing - if Russia removes Putin it will still start another war?
Russians, that just "removed putin and his circle" will never agree to prosecuting their own or, god forbid, paying back for crimes. Did they pay back much of lend-lease that saved them?
And yes - Russia will start another war. Because putin is not the problem. Russia is the problem.
When USSR fell - Russia immediately started not one, not two, but three wars of aggression (Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan) to cut the disintegration short - that West oh so conveniently turned the blind eye on. Russia cannot exist without wars because wars make its people glued together. Losing a war and then not starting any new ones for long enough leads to disintegration - and this no "diplomatically switched" russian government will ever have.
Russia must cease to exist if you don't want new, barbaric wars in this region.
Or are you telling me next guys will ever agree to remove russian troops not only from Ukraine, but from Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan, which they still occupy - and pay reparations to 4 countries at once? Or even to Armenia, a parliament of which was brutally murdered by russian spetsnaz back in 1999 (when there was no putin yet)?
-
44 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
There is no viable alternative for Putin. The alternative for Russia is to remove him and his immediate circle from power, find someone clean enough we can work with, blame it all on Putin and "those guys", and walk back from complete disaster by putting this whole thing back into the diplomatic arena.
So there will be another war in Ukraine (or not only) in 5-10 years.
Also because "diplomatic arena" means nobody gets punished for all the warcrimes and reparations aren't getting paid.
-
18 minutes ago, Zeleban said:
Certainly, the actions of some countries to provide asylum for Russians have a negative effect. The Russian diaspora in Western countries will increase, they will be able to influence the domestic and foreign policies of these countries
Ukrainian refugees will return home sooner or later, because they are refugees, russians are not. And knowing russians - "influencing" will be the best case scenario. Diversions or terrorist acts or even open insurgency are not unlikely once the number of russians reaches a critical enough amount. It's a slow ticking bomb, just ask... ugh... Moldova, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and so on.
-
3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:
Joke about militant sentiment in Russia
I like the meltdown in russkie TG where one of them was raging about how Georgia should be grateful russians are now driving across the border in cars and not in tanks like it was in 2008.
And another one blamed Ukraine for having to stand 17 hrs in line to cross the border and wished all Ukrainians to be murdered for daring to resist and causing his sorry *** to have to run.
-
23 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Excellent place to exile an *sshole. The small island is US the big one Russia. If he attempts to escape there is enough ammo to stop him.
You all keep giving putin way way too much importance.
He doesn't matter. He really really doesn't matter at all.
-
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:
Not the end of NATO, because Ukraine is not part of NATO, as I am sure you know. But the Baltic states are. So the situation is different.
And for the other ultimatums, China has too much to lose in order to make such a threat. Putin doesn't have much left to lose at all.
North Korea has a limited amount of nuclear weapons and limited missile technology, so it's not the same as Russia.
Of course Ukraine isn't a part of NATO - but if the West, as you say, pushes for giving territories to Russia in exchange for no nuclear attack - then it's a huge signal it's OK for the West to give away Baltics too. And why not? I mean "Russia will just occupy Ukraine and then they will be happy and stop. After all they just want their 'slavic union' and that's it." quickly transforms into "Russia will just occupy Baltics and then they will stop. After all USSR borders is all they want. So why not sacrifice 5% of EU to save 95%?" - once Russia threatens everyone with a nuclear holocaust over some "minor" Eastern Euro territories. It's like negotiating with terrorists instead of killing them: if nuclear threat works once - it will work ALWAYS. And then it's the end of NATO.
And afterwards what exactly will China lose? Nothing. After all no nuclear war happens. "Taiwan is just an island in the middle of nowhere, it's not like China will not keep trading with us. So your NVidia's GPU label will say "made in China" and not "made in Taiwan" - who cares? We made sure you aren't dying to radiation - be grateful for that"
And then you have DPRK. "One nuclear weapon is enough to open pandora's box. So maybe South Korea will find a way out on their own?"
Oh and you need not worry about DPRK not having enough nuclear weapons. They all get theirs from Russia anyway.
-
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:
Putin's plan A was that Ukraine would collapse immediately.
Plan B was that the UKR army would be defeated relatively fast.
Plan C was to concentrate all forces on taking eastern Ukraine.
Plan D was to concentrate all forces on taking only the two "republics"
Plan E is now to not lose more of the land already captured. Annexation and conscription are the tools Putin hopes will be able to achieve this.
But I think we all expect this to fail, so what's Plan F?
With annexation, I don't see how he can really make any serious peace negotiations, giving up Crimea or the "republics". Declaring something part of Russia and then giving it away doesn't seem politically feasible.
I only really see two options. Either Putin just watches as his armies are routed out of Ukraine. Not politically feasible either. Or he makes a serious and specified ultimatum, saying if Ukraine does not withdraw to a certain line, Russia will employ a limited number of nuclear weapons against military targets inside Ukraine.
Tactical nuclear weapons might have a limited miltary use in modern war, but they do have political weight. Faced with this kind of ultimatum, Ukraine and NATO would have a real headache about how to respond.
Ukraine might be gung-ho, but they are still dependent on aid from their Western allies. Europe and USA could let Zelensky know that he had to back down. The war would end with an unease armistice, not a peace settlement, and Putin would get his off ramp.
And then enjoy watching putin's nuclear ultimatum about Baltic states in 5 years.
And Chinese nuclear ultimatum about Taiwan in 2023.
And DPRK nuclear ultimatum about South Korea.
And the end of NATO.
If nukes make any country a fair game and excuse genocides - countries having them can occupy any non-nuclear neighbor without any consequences. Everybody thus will have to get nukes faster than their neighbour to survive. And eventually they will start going off everywhere.
Or a bunch can actually man up and own it for trying to be friends with russian empire in 1991.
-
3 hours ago, Taranis said:
"Several hundred demonstrators gathered Friday, September 23 in Saint Petersburg in support of the "referendums" of annexation to Russia of four Ukrainian regions. OLGA MALTSEVA / AFP"
*Not many men... I think the ones in the photos are not the mobilized ones...
You can clearly tell evil tyrant putin forced these poor people to support the brutal murders of Ukrainians. Only putin is evil, russians are of course good and shouldn't be held collectively responsible because "racism".
-
2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Ignorance. If you went to the far east, it would take years before you came back. The form of government was anything but democratic. The people who run Unilever today were glorified pirates in the 17th and 18th century. The printing press was only a few hundred years old. Books were for the very rich. When I was a kid an encyclopedia cost three months wages. Today thanks to the internet we can have dialog which is required to have peace.
Except russians have free access to the internet, books and dialog.
While future US citizens didn't have any access to the internet, books and dialog in 1776. People like Washington and Adams happened to lead the thing obviously not because British Empire appointed them there, but because locals chose to trust them.
Same as French. They went through three bloody revolutions, which, if you look at them, were basically civil wars between people who wanted dictatorship and people who wanted liberty. They tried until it worked, because people decided they want it. They had zero information about how to do it right, hence it took three attempts, but they kept trying.
So far east is far east because a "strongarm guy" ordering you around is a bad thing in your head - but is an absolutely desired thing in someone else's. And that's the difference that should be acknowledged and accepted - instead of writing it off to "evil tyrants", many of whom, ironically, never hurt anyone in their lives personally.
-
1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:
The Dutch and the English also thought they could plant their flag anywhere and it belonged to them. New York was swapped for Surinam. Indonesia was also horse-traded for some territories in Malaya and Sri Lanka. Locals didn't have a say. putin unfortunately for him was born two hundred years too late.
Locals of those empires certainly did have a say. It's the reason those flags were planted everywhere. It wasn't a will of one random guy that held his people by the magic spell.
Any country is an abstract construct that has zero weight in physical reality around us, but lots of weight in people's minds. And it's people who set the rules about how the country will exist. Some set the rules about it being democratic being led by a temporary manager with main task making the country as competitive economically and technologically as possible, some want it to be totalitarian being led by a strong warlord that will give them free stuff by taking it from the others.
"Evil tyrants" is just Disney stuff. In reality if people didn't want to consider somebody their leader - they never would and he'd be a nobody.
-
1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:
They got very good Chess Players; Ballerina's also gave very good tips for the UIT Pistol disciplines. Underestimating them is a mistake. Unfortunate they got a complete *sshole as leader.
When every single leader in their history is an "*sshole" - maybe the problem isn't with the leader?
-
6 hours ago, The_Capt said:
I am very concerned about any suggestion that the peoples of the Donbass or Crimea, who were separatists or even served in the LNR/DNR forces are somehow not entitled to democratic rights and freedoms as any Ukrainian citizens, not that I think that is what most of us are suggesting.
You aren't concerned with three NATO and EU members not giving the right to vote to people who hate the country they live in - so it will be fine.
Just as it is in e.g. Lithuania - people who want to vote for Russia - may go and vote in Russia - and don't come back. Or stfu and get in line if they want to live in said country.
Some seem to be confusing "separatism" (e.g. some ethnic group wanting to be free and independent from the current country) with treason (trying to help another country occupy theirs).
-
Meanwhile russians have announced another anti-mobilization protest. But because it's taking the evening primetime slot of an anti-war protest that should've happened for the past 8.5 years - the anti-war protest had to be cancelled.
-
49 minutes ago, paxromana said:
But ... but ... but .... according to the new laws just passed, surrendering - or even being captured - is a crime - shades of 1941.
So, unless he wants to shoot the returning soldiers ... double standards, anyone?
Don't forget - russians also claim that they are gonna escalate for Ukraine attacking territories of Russia - meaning, of course, newly occupied territories of Ukraine.
Which, in turn, means that old occupied territories of Belgorod People's Republic, Democratic Republic of Kursk and United Bryansk Emirates are not Russia, because those are getting smashed for quite a while now.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
If a russian has a citizenship of Russia, pays taxes, which are used to arm his soldiers - he is directly responsible for everything his army and government does. Because they kill people with his money. So saying that said russian is somehow not responsible because he simply sits home and makes a choice to ignore warcrimes he himself pays for - is wrong.
Not to mention that while this current war (let alone all the others) that Russia wages has been going on for 8.5 years - there has been zero opposition to it amongst russians. In fact we will be having one million of them coming to brutally murder us, literally every 100th russian will be trying to kill us himself - but somehow that isn't an indication of collective responsibility.
Again I get it why you don't get it - not facing extermination by people of warmongering empire paints the world in different colors for you. Sadly it doesn't for me, it's pretty black and white now - because russians made their free choice to kill us.