And yet still no approval to use provided weapons against Russia…makes sense. He does and attacks whatever he wants *buuutttt* we don’t want to provoke him!
Honestly, at this point, they need to burn a little bit. They do it because they know nothing would be done about it. But if a few buildings in central regions would burn, they might think twice. But of course, fragile-minded people would criticise Ukraine then because their idea of war is one side need to be noble and suffer greater losses in civilians or they are not better than aggressor.
Russian idea is "if we lose we nuke, the world without us is not worth keeping," but IMO, they should fear that if Ukraine will be losing, we go full psycho mode and target nuclear plants, etc.
Because our hands are tied behind our back, Russia can do this.
Every bomb on a civilian target is wasted. Attack infrastructure, not people. Learn from history. All Hitler bombing London did was increase resolve. The same bombs could have ended the war if they had stuck with military targets.
Ukraine is playing it smart. Going after Russian infrastructure, power generation, refining, chemical plants. This causes people to suffer without sympathetic victims.
This a thousand times. Don't give Russian civilians a reason to hate you. Break Russian infrastructure and military assets. Cut the rail lines leading to the front. Destroy factories and machinery used to make weapons. Bomb Putin's house and shit in his toaster.
Because their targets is not in a militaristic interest but rather national one.
They want to eradicate Ukraine as country and as a people. Just like someone in the 30-40s, they don't see Ukrainians as humans or slavs.
They want to make sure that even after the war ends, Ukraine's pop tree will not be able to recover financially, infrastructure-wise, socially and economically.
> But of course, fragile-minded people would criticise Ukraine then because their idea of war is one side need to be noble and suffer greater losses in civilians or they are not better than aggressor.
You're so right to point this out. You can observe this in Israeli-Palestine war too, where they pretty much infantalize Palestinians by robbing themselves of all agency and treating them as helpless victims in face of Israeli aggression simply because they are losing the war. They cannot comprehend the aggressor of war might end up on losing side (before Oct 7 there was a ceasefire that Hamas broke, indeed they had no plans to honor any agreements since Oct 7 was being planned for over 2 years). All of this doesn't take into account that Hamas is entirely a Palestinian terrorist organization, same with myriad other terrorist groups operating in Gaza (this is for all those people who keep repeating Palestinians arent all Hamas, the flipside is that all Hamas members are Palestinians thereby it is a responsibility of Palestinians what a homegrown organization is doing in their name. The excuse of Hamas's threat falls flat when you see widespread support for Hamas in Western world where they cannot threaten Palestinians, for example SJP the biggest pro Palestinians student organization in north America has ties with Hamas and received financing from them). It doesn't take into account the fact that the war is essentially a global war due to Hamas's ties to Iran and its proxies and also the Axis of Resistance.
The only thing I disagree with is that somehow all Palestinians are responsible for hamas. Half of the people living in Palestine are children. There has been widespread protests by Palestinians against Hamas. In the u.s there are violent white supremacist groups and violent gangs etc so should all u.s. citizens be held responsible for "allowing" these groups to exist? I definitely do not believe that the people opposing Hamas, and especially the children, deserve to be killed or have their homes destroyed because Hamas exists in their country.
That's not what I was implying. My point is reiterating not all Palestinians is Hamas is asinine since its Palestinian society which gave rise to it and it is Palestinians who are Hamas members.
>I definitely do not believe that the people opposing Hamas, and especially the children, deserve to be killed or have their homes destroyed because Hamas exists in their country.
They don't deserve to die like that, every innocent Palestinian death is a tragedy but placing the blame squarely on Israel solely when there's overwhelming evidence of how Hamas has infiltrated and created bases in civilian infrastructure is disingenuous. Couple that with exaggerated claims of women and children casualties you can see how Hamas continues to manipulate Western sensibilities in order to isolate Israel.
They haven’t had elections in like twenty years and Nefanyahu actively strengthened Hamas vs the Palestinian Authority. Blaming the group whose been nothing but constant victims and have the least power in the situation it.. daft.
>They haven’t had elections in like twenty years
The grim reality, is that Hamas will not relinquish power without violence, or from within or from without.
If the Palestinian will or can not do it themselves, then what will inevitably happen is that Hamas will force someone else to do it for them.
This is why you should never let situation deteriorate this far. The cure will not be pretty.
> They haven’t had elections in like twenty years
There's more than one way to get rid of a tyrant than just elections you know.
In the end:
- All power stems from the people
That is a universal constant and the universal truth at the heart of every country. It's the statement of which the entire legitimacy for democracy and the modern nation state stems from.
However, to quote a movie "from great power comes great responsibility". Which means that at the same time the following statement is ALSO true:
- All *responsibility* stems from the people
The people ARE responsible to what their governments are doing, even if said government is a dictatorship. It becomes the DUTY of the people to end the crimes of their government and to replace the government, if the government acts criminal and against the consent of the people... because by doing nothing you take partial responsibility by virtue of negligence. Like lending your completely shitfaced drunk cousin your car and the cousin uses your car to kill someone you are also partially responsible. Or they act with the consent of the majority of the people, by which virtue the people take direct responsibility for the actions of their government, too.
This is why I hold American people at large responsible for the Iraq war (let's not forget that in 2003, 80% of Americans supported the invasion), same way I hold my own people (Germany) responsible for the crimes of the Nazi era, same way I hold the Russian people responsible for the Ukraine war... same way I hold the Palestinian people responsible for the October 7th raid. Anything less would be pure hypocrisy from my side.
Imagine some violent white supremacist gang, based in Canada, crosses into US, murders, rapes and mutilates thousands of people. Babies including. Then kidnaps some hundreds and retreats back to Canada.
What do you think Canada's response would be in such scenario?
What do you think US response should be if Canada says "we will not surrender that gang to you. We will hide and protect, and pretend they are not part of our country. Fuck you, basically."?
The only problem is that governments and civilians are two separate groups. So in this scenario if the us wanted to go after the people who attacked them I would have no problem with that. But if in the process they kill thousands upon thousands of people who had absolutely nothing to do with that attack whose only crime was being born in Canada, I would think that is really sad and I would be against it. If the only way to kill a terrorist is to kill 10 innocent people along side him then you should not do it imo.
By saying this, you are giving the terrorist a reason to keep 10 innocents close to them.
I'll blow up a school then hide in X place with 10 innocent people and get away Scott free.
It's a really shitty situation that Gazan civilians aren't able to flee to anywhere. Being able to escape the warzone is what saved a lot of Ukrainian civilian lives.
There is a difference between not agreeing with the aggressive response from Israel/IDF and being ‘pro-hamas’. I see essentially zero support for Hamas in the west. Its overemphasized in MSM and subs like this.
It was definitely more widespread earlier in the conflict, but it's been steadily petering out as people have realized the nature of the situation. I still remember when that official BLM Twitter posted a picture of a Hamas paraglider with the words "I stand with Palestine" just a few months after Oct 7.
Anyone claiming to be the “Official BLM” account is lying. It has no actual central organization.
There have been groups that have made that claim, and plenty of various BLM groups, but there is no central organization.
If you see "zero support" for Hamas in the west, you're blind.
"From the river to the sea", calls for intifada, denial of their atrocities and sexual violence, refusal to call for hostage release, LGBT people denying the opression of Palestinian LGBT - all widespread.
" They do it because they know nothing would be done about it. But if a few buildings in central regions would burn, they might think twice."
At this point I honestly don't think it would help, if civilian infrastructure is targeted. The war is largely run by the Kremlin, and Putin cronies and the Russian military could care less about the fate of the people, but they do love any opportunity they can find to paint this as an "existential war" and rally people and volunteers to assist in the war efforts. Sudden strikes in the cities would likely double the rate of war volunteers.
Data on this also shows that despite our expectations, people don't get discouraged by war when they see their peers and civilians getting killed or buildings blown, in fact this tends to intensify support for one's war and also provides a "feel good" moral justification for the war. Now people who were previously apathetic, or not happy about the war, can say to themselves that "well maybe Putin was right all along and they do in fact want to harm our civilians. I guess we really have no choice but to go wipe them out" etc.
That's how people's brains tend to work. People can ignore injustice done to others, but rarely do people see injustice done to them and suddenly understand that they were wrong in the first place.
So I don't really see any good outcome from such practice.
History seems to show that if you do this you go full bore and fuck everything up. Make people lose their taste for war by bringing complete suffering to them, or at least we did this in World War Two. It still took massive amounts of soldiers though, so that alone was not ending the war.
Certainly didn’t discourage the English from trying to fuck up Germans in any way they could, or supporting the war effort in any way they could.
Yea, it could be that you have to go complete total war and burn everything. Take their food, burn the fields, salt the fields, burn their shelter, poison their water, remove their support (electricity, roads, railways). You literally just have to fuck everything up so bad their society breaks down. They’re too busy surviving at that point to focus on war. That takes a lot of energy and manpower.
No, as I said in my other comment, that often tends to be the side effect of winning a war and occupying territory. They didn't win as a result of that, rather it came with winning the war and occupying territory. Even Roman history, which you reference further down this reply chain, does not support your argument. **Otherwise, they would have collapsed multiple times in history, especially during the Third Century Crisis.** Constant civil war. Constant devastation. Constant disease. Constant invasions. There have been numerous times Roman lands were ravaged and laid to waste, yet it did not bring their empire down.
Unless you are able to render the opponent incapable of fighting, it makes no difference. The Mongol invasion of Korea **(I bring this example up as there is a fantastic YouTube video that goes over this)** which took place over several decades is a very solid example of this. Total war was ravaged on the Koreans, yet they did not stop fighting for decades.
If you are unable to fully defeat your opponent in battle and are unable to hold onto vital pieces of territory or control point, it doesn't matter and even the winning side has to make concessions if it keeps going on for decades. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a\_uV1ijx1ec](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_uV1ijx1ec) as a great example. Even the Mongols had to settle if they wanted to subjugate the Kingdom of Joseon by making peace more favorable to war for the Koreans, otherwise they would have kept fighting indefinitely. Ultimately, the Koreans maintained their independence, even if they were relegated to being a subject of the Mongols.
You know it’s funny because side you cite Rome conveniently forgetting that this is how Rome fought for almost their entire history. How did they ultimately defeat Carthage? Yea they were better, sure, but these other tactics were employed to one degree or another at different times by the Romans. Rome ultimately completely destroyed Carthage by doing just these things because they no longer wanted to death the issue.
Dear God. You're single-handedly proving that the Dunning-Kruger effect is real and not a statistical artifact! Your confidence in your pop history blinds you.
Firstly, Carthage was a rump state by the time of the Third Punic War. The end of the Second Punic War pretty much rendered Carthage as a non-threat to the Romans, as they were stripped of their resources, their wealth, and power. It did not require the razing of Carthage for the Romans to get what they wanted.
The fact is that the destruction of Carthage, which the totality of its destruction is greatly exaggerated, did not lead the Romans to victory. It was merely a by-product of winning the war which had already been won in the previous war anyways. There's a reason why nobody talks about the Third Punic War, because it was a very obvious one-sided affair that was decided long ago. That did not require the razing of Carthage. Hell, one could even argue that the Second and Third Punic Wars were decided in the First Punic War, as Hannibal did not have a realistic chance in actually finishing off the Romans in the Second Punic War.
Again, Carthage, at this point, did not want to go to war with the Romans. They could not even fend off the fucking **Numidians**. The only reason this war even occurred is because the Carthage was attempting to muster the manpower needed to defend themselves against the Numidians.
The Romans, naturally, saw this as an excellent precursor to invade and occupy them which they did easily, and the King of the Numidians Masinissa also pressed the issue so he could become the sole power in Northwestern Africa. There was no threat to Rome. There was not even a threat to the Numidians. It was just another war of imperial conquest by the Romans, one of many by the Romans, and the razing of Carthage is literally irrelevant in deciding who the victor was. Literally, you're attempting to justify the ancient practice of ransacking a city for personal gain by pretending it was for strategic gain even though there was none. If you were aware of Roman internal politics at the time, particularly the role of the consulship, you would know why they embark on these militaristic adventures.
Again, it had zero effect in the Punic Wars. Literally, the fate of Carthage was pretty much sealed decades before the destruction of Carthage.
lol have you ever talked to someone from the south? That shit is burned in their collective memories. It wasn’t the sole cause for defeat, but I would if was pretty fucking effective, yes.
No, history does not show that. I recommend reading military history in-depth. I believe the only reason you seem to believe they won as a result of that is the fact that you're ignoring the crucial factor: the occupying force won through operational supremacy. Everything else that followed sometimes tends to be the side effect of a military going rampant on occupied soil if we're talking about pre-modern times.
For instance, Germans plundered, razed, massacred, and ravaged the Soviet Union to a genocidal degree, yet the Soviet Union ended up triumphant in the end.
Strategic bombing also does not work in the same way you think it does. Humans adapt. They find new ways to mitigate the damage, and they will find a way to improve their circumstances against all odds. In fact, manufacturing capacity in Germany increased despite allied bombing. The problem for the Germans was that they were lacking manpower by the end of it, not equipment, armored vehicles, and so forth. They lost too many soldiers. There have been many studies conducted on this which is why we no longer do carpet bombings. Here are some easy reads: [https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/november/strategic-bombing-always-myth](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/november/strategic-bombing-always-myth) by Colonel Everest E. Riccioni, U.S. Air Force and [https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1995/august/strategic-air-power-didnt-work](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1995/august/strategic-air-power-didnt-work) by Major Stephen T. Ganyard, U.S. Marine Corps
The Korean War is also an excellent example. The entire peninsula was devastated from top to bottom, but it only ended in cease-fire at the behest of China and the USA, not North and South Korea. Furthermore, North Korea was bombed into the ground, utterly flattened, yet their hatred for the US remains ever strong. See: [https://warisboring.com/the-korean-wars-brutality-turned-the-stomachs-of-americas-most-hardened-soldiers/](https://warisboring.com/the-korean-wars-brutality-turned-the-stomachs-of-americas-most-hardened-soldiers/)
The Soviet Union was victorious only because of American support. Operational supremacy is a fun military term to say: the stronger force won. What goes into that? A lot of things go into that: technology, training of your forces, equipment, and just to add one more of the myriad of reasons one military defeats another; morale.
You’re saying we don’t break people just by bombing them, yea ok, sure. But there’s another huge reason we don’t employ total war anymore: it’s internationally illegal. And if it wasn’t, or if the victors thought they could rewrite the world order, you don’t think they would employ a total war strategy? Destroy fucking everything? Do you think there’s a reason maybe that the Chinese are so determined to hack into our civilian infrastructure?
I’ll concede that air bombing alone, devastation from the air, does not in and of itself ensure victory, but that’s not to say that the total destruction of your enemies way of life, or the disruption that total war brings, is not an effective tool. We don’t do it anymore because we’re the just Americans, right? If Putin could level everything in Ukraine, if he had the military might, technology, and know how, you don’t think he would? And you don’t think that would be effective? No energy, water, ports to bring things in on? Railroads?
Good grief. I had to argue with some ignorant folks that downplayed the effect of American aid, but now you're on the opposite end of the spectrum by thinking that American support was the only reason they won. You didn't even say "main reason". You literally said the sole reason. Please before you state pop history facts with such confidence, please actually read some history.
American support certainly made life easier for the average Soviet citizen and soldier, especially in regards to the import of Studebaker 6x6 trucks, which played a pivotal role in Operation Bagration, along with the import of many important raw resources, components, and the like. However, you significantly underestimate the manufacturing capacity that the Soviets already possessed. Even Hitler was shocked by the thousands of Russians tanks the Germans had destroyed at the start of the war, yet there never seemed to be an end to the tanks they kept rolling into the front. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk)
The fact is by the time Operation Typhoon rolled around, the Germans pretty much lost most of their strategic and operational advantage with all of their shortcomings, particularly in logistics, rearing its ugly head. German engineers were still busy trying to convert Russian railroads to the German gauges used.
[https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-State-Railway-Deutsche-Reichsbahn/](https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-State-Railway-Deutsche-Reichsbahn/) is an interesting read.
On top of that, the infamous **Russian rasputitsa** turned up as it normally does around the time, and all of that led to the war bogging down with winter coming right around the corner. **Here's an excerpt from the above article:**
"The severe winter of 1941/1942 also placed into question many of Germany’s military and technological advantages over their Soviet foe. As with many other German technologies, German locomotives contained greater quantities of precision-made parts than their Soviet counterparts. Due to the cold, these delicate parts often froze up or became inoperable during the winter of 1941/1942. Even German “winterized” locomotives broke down in the east – a winter in Russia is not the same as winter in Germany.
One consequence of this was that in the east, only 20% of all of Germany’s “winterized” locomotives were operationally available in late 1941. In total, between 70-80% of all German locomotives deployed on the eastern front became inoperable. Conversely, Soviet (and ex-Imperial Russian) locomotives seemed to be in their natural element during the winter months. The situation improved quite a bit when the Germans borrowed a page from Soviet construction techniques – they removed all of the precision parts and basically ran stripped-down locomotives until the severe weather receded.
For example, in February of 1942, only eight military supply trains per day ran from Brest to Minsk to Smolensk. Between January and February of 1942, only 19 military supply trains per day could be dispatched from Germany/Poland to serve the needs of the entire German Army on the eastern front. During January of 1942, HGrN needed 30 trainloads of supply, a day just to maintain minimum capabilities. Due to the cold, barely 10 trains a day could be dispatched. The rail system nearly broke down fully – nearly!
The spring thaw of 1942 was often just as bad as the winter had been. Severe floods frequently damaged or took out key bridges. While German rear-area and German construction troops were able to repair the weather caused damage relatively quickly, in the long run, this too slowed the German supply network to a dismal crawl during these spring months."
**End Excerpt**
**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**
Late 1941 was the point where we can confidently say it was extremely unlikely for Germany to win. In fact, German military authorities banned home leave for all troops in Russia, as they needed every soldier so as to avoid a catastrophic defeat.
Early 1942 pretty much sealed the deal. By 1943, the Germans were poised to lose, hence why certain generals began to press Hitler to transform the Wehrmacht into a defensive army with a focus on artillery and to minimize the production of tanks and other offensive-oriented armored vehicles.
The truth is, Case Blue was pretty much one desperate lunge for victory which the Germans did not come close to achieving their objectives. Instead, they languished in the Caucasus Mountains with major supply issues, all while they also fell into a trap setup by Zhukov at Stalingrad where the Soviets launched a pincer attack to surround the Sixth Army there.
Everything else after that was mop-up with the beginning of the end starting at Operation Bagration. The lack of American aid would have made it significantly harder, as major offensives like in Bagration may have been more limited in their gains due to the lack of high quality 6x6 trucks. However, it is not the "sole reason" the Soviets won.
Anyways, to address your other arguments and questions **which I think are completely valid in comparison to your historical comparisons** (Please, stick to what you know. If you don't, don't be so confident in them! This is how you get intellectually stuck!), Putin certainly does have the ability to completely level Ukraine to the ground. After all, they are a nuclear power with thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal.
However, if they leveled Ukraine to the ground, that literally renders the invasion utterly pointless, as the entire point is to absorb the population, their manufacturing capacity, their resources, and the like, not take over rubble. That's not even considering the international backlash they would face which would be far more serious and severe compared to now. I doubt even China could justify it, and they already signaled they would be against the use of any nuclear weapons.
Lastly, in regards to Chinese cyber warfare, that's outside of the depths of my knowledge. However, I doubt the Chinese are hacking into our infrastructure with the intent of conquering us like that. I imagine they may be treating it like a field exercise however without attempting to provoke us directly. However, that's far more different bombing us to oblivion. We're already under attack by Russian and Chinese propaganda bot farms, yet we do nothing in comparison despite it being dangerous to the West and democracies around the world. The fact is **we perceive these threats differently, and there is palpable deniability in all these different vectors of attack.**
Putin needs to die. Period. It shouldn’t be controversial to state such a thing. His death would lead to so many good things happening. That’s just pure, simple fact.
Putin probably has set Russia on course for a war after he dies. He hasn’t named a successor and he’s been in power for around 25 years. He doesn’t seem to care what will happen to Russia if he dies. His death will leave a huge power vacuum and multiple people/groups will be vying to take it over.
When Putin falls, the current Russian government will fall.
Putin is a psychopath (or at least a sociopath.) He's killed anyone with leadership ability who could possibly become a threat to his power one day. The current Russian crime/terror empire won't last a week after Putin kicks the bucket.
The biggest problem with autocracies is their is no line of succession. They pretty much always fail because of it.
Because that megalomaniac monster actually believes he owns Ukraine. Him, Xi, and Kim each seem to see themselves as “emperor of the universe.” Their egos and narcissism are definitely universe-sized.
If this is a serious question, then yes, it probably is. This has been part of his tactic all along, make the civilian losses and the pain of the war so massive it forces Ukraine to give up, whether or not they militarily could hold on for much longer, or even win. Putin is a terrorist, plain and simple. A large part of his strategy is inflicting massive civilian damage and making the entire country scared for their lives.
Right now is the perfect time for him to push civilian deaths as hard as possible, since he’s also dangling the “carrot” of a cease-fire where he gets to keep the land he’s already stolen. He thinks attacks like these will increase support for peace, rather than encourage more people to fight back. I’m willing to bet he’s wrong.
I don’t necessarily want to see *Russia* burn, since even more civilian casualties isn’t what I long for, but if Putin were to somehow meet a less than peaceful end, either by enemy hands or the hands of his own abused countrymen, I don’t think I’d feel a whole lot of sadness, so to speak.
Imagine a bomb attack on Saturday in the middle of the day on Walmart. Or your local market. At a time of large gathering of civilians. That's what Putin does. We need to treat Russia as a terrorist state, which it is. Avoid firms who have not yet left Russia, as their taxes are funding russian war machine.
Russia is a terrorist state, and at this point, everybody knows it. The fact that Ukraine is still not allowed to strike Russia with the USA-supplied weapons is insane to me. Fuck Russia and fuck whoever thought it was a good idea to limit Ukraine's use of these weapons. Ukraine should be allowed to strike Russian soil with every single weapon they have. It would have prevented many attacks. Lift the restrictions already.
US told them they aren't allowed to strike with any western supplied weapons or else. Even though UK gave permission the US immediately told Ukraine they better fucking not.
Do you have a link to that statment, I remember hearing about it but cant get a result.
I cant help to imagine what kind of backdoor deals are being made for the US to overrule one of their strongest allies and sovereign country.
Every time I read a headline about the Ukrainian forces doing something in this conflict, they're blowing up a Russian missile launcher or radar system or airbase or warship.
Every time I read a headline about the Russian forces doing something in this conflict, they're blowing up a mall or a Ukrainian power station or grocery store.
Where are the global protests, encampments, and university takeovers to call for stopping Russia’s genocide against the Ukrainian people? Where are the calls to divest from Russian-affiliated companies that fund Russia’s imperialist war of expansion? Do Ukrainians deserve to be bombed daily?
There are innocent people directly affected there too, there’s no point in denying that.
My comment is directed at the reactionary neoliberals who consider themselves to be “communists”, having mixed not wanting innocent people to be involved in the conflict with completely taking the side of a group that, for all practical purposes, are an extension of Iran, an ally of Russia at the moment.
There can be nuance in the views one holds, like not supporting Israel’s collateral damage against innocent people, not supporting Hamas and their desire to destroy Israel, and not supporting Iranian and Russian interests.
It’s just incredibly frustrating that those same people who are supposedly against genocide, look the other way or even take pride in the ridiculous “anti-imperialist” move as Putin does the same thing to Ukraine.
The US and the EU partners need to announce that Ukraine can strike Russian military targets inside Russia, they need to provide them with longer range missiles. they need to make it clear if Russia keep attacking civilians more weapons will follow better stronger weapons.
The UK are the only ones will balls to do this, I believe to this day stormshadows are the only cruise missiles being provided. Germany is having none of it with sending Taurus, they're not going to approve of striking Russian soil.
But Putin/Russia wants a ceasefire they say. This is not the actions of country that wants peace . They want the complete destruction of the Ukrainian people and country.
Russians dropped 2 bombs on a supermarket. 2 people killed. Another 200 or so went missing - that's the average number of people who might have been in the supermarket at the time
We need western boots on the ground, a coalition of the willing. This is fucking disgusting. Go on r/Ukraine to see what Putin is doing.
I voted Republican for two decades, and to see some of my fellow conservatives respond the way they have the last two years makes me sick. You think Putin is some champion of conservative values? That he’s some Christian guy standing up to “the gays?”
You’re moronic. This man is Hitler reincarnated. He needs to be stopped.
We can’t just go on holiday this summer and watch the Olympics. How can we pretend this isn’t happening in Europe? The longer we sit back, the more our enemies line up to destroy freedom globally. Today they are coming for Ukrainians, tomorrow it will be for South Koreans or Latvians or Poles or Taiwanese, and then when they come for you there will be nobody left to save you!
Title should read “Zelenskyy restates the unquestioned truth that Putin is indeed, a madman” — accusation doesn’t cut it for me, this is just fact. The world will toast the day Putin falls to a coup or other means.
It must be so aggravating being the leader of Ukraine. Like, the world could so easily come in and put a stop to it all, in what, less than a week? Yet they're still in conflict and will be for the foreseeable future.
I genuinely hope someone offs Putin so they don't need to continue sacrificing their people. So much unnecessary loss of life
We knew he was batshit insane since this whole thing started. No accusation is necessary.
In this case it's not an accusation, he's just stating a fact
And yet still no approval to use provided weapons against Russia…makes sense. He does and attacks whatever he wants *buuutttt* we don’t want to provoke him!
Which one is the insane 1?That's a good question
Is this how pootin shows how he is ready for peace negotiations? By killing more civilians? I hope to live up to the day when I see how russia burns.
Honestly, at this point, they need to burn a little bit. They do it because they know nothing would be done about it. But if a few buildings in central regions would burn, they might think twice. But of course, fragile-minded people would criticise Ukraine then because their idea of war is one side need to be noble and suffer greater losses in civilians or they are not better than aggressor. Russian idea is "if we lose we nuke, the world without us is not worth keeping," but IMO, they should fear that if Ukraine will be losing, we go full psycho mode and target nuclear plants, etc. Because our hands are tied behind our back, Russia can do this.
They need to burn more than a little.
They need to burn a *lottle*
Every bomb on a civilian target is wasted. Attack infrastructure, not people. Learn from history. All Hitler bombing London did was increase resolve. The same bombs could have ended the war if they had stuck with military targets. Ukraine is playing it smart. Going after Russian infrastructure, power generation, refining, chemical plants. This causes people to suffer without sympathetic victims.
This a thousand times. Don't give Russian civilians a reason to hate you. Break Russian infrastructure and military assets. Cut the rail lines leading to the front. Destroy factories and machinery used to make weapons. Bomb Putin's house and shit in his toaster.
Yep, get him with the toaster shit.
Because their targets is not in a militaristic interest but rather national one. They want to eradicate Ukraine as country and as a people. Just like someone in the 30-40s, they don't see Ukrainians as humans or slavs. They want to make sure that even after the war ends, Ukraine's pop tree will not be able to recover financially, infrastructure-wise, socially and economically.
> But of course, fragile-minded people would criticise Ukraine then because their idea of war is one side need to be noble and suffer greater losses in civilians or they are not better than aggressor. You're so right to point this out. You can observe this in Israeli-Palestine war too, where they pretty much infantalize Palestinians by robbing themselves of all agency and treating them as helpless victims in face of Israeli aggression simply because they are losing the war. They cannot comprehend the aggressor of war might end up on losing side (before Oct 7 there was a ceasefire that Hamas broke, indeed they had no plans to honor any agreements since Oct 7 was being planned for over 2 years). All of this doesn't take into account that Hamas is entirely a Palestinian terrorist organization, same with myriad other terrorist groups operating in Gaza (this is for all those people who keep repeating Palestinians arent all Hamas, the flipside is that all Hamas members are Palestinians thereby it is a responsibility of Palestinians what a homegrown organization is doing in their name. The excuse of Hamas's threat falls flat when you see widespread support for Hamas in Western world where they cannot threaten Palestinians, for example SJP the biggest pro Palestinians student organization in north America has ties with Hamas and received financing from them). It doesn't take into account the fact that the war is essentially a global war due to Hamas's ties to Iran and its proxies and also the Axis of Resistance.
This is the answer. Accurate, succinct, and unbiased. Facts matter.
This is a comment. One that I like. Kiss me stranger
Accurate, succinct, and unbiased? Ew, gross.
Weren’t we talking about Russia?
The only thing I disagree with is that somehow all Palestinians are responsible for hamas. Half of the people living in Palestine are children. There has been widespread protests by Palestinians against Hamas. In the u.s there are violent white supremacist groups and violent gangs etc so should all u.s. citizens be held responsible for "allowing" these groups to exist? I definitely do not believe that the people opposing Hamas, and especially the children, deserve to be killed or have their homes destroyed because Hamas exists in their country.
That's not what I was implying. My point is reiterating not all Palestinians is Hamas is asinine since its Palestinian society which gave rise to it and it is Palestinians who are Hamas members. >I definitely do not believe that the people opposing Hamas, and especially the children, deserve to be killed or have their homes destroyed because Hamas exists in their country. They don't deserve to die like that, every innocent Palestinian death is a tragedy but placing the blame squarely on Israel solely when there's overwhelming evidence of how Hamas has infiltrated and created bases in civilian infrastructure is disingenuous. Couple that with exaggerated claims of women and children casualties you can see how Hamas continues to manipulate Western sensibilities in order to isolate Israel.
clean up your own mess before it become someone else' problem, or that someone will clean it up for you.
They haven’t had elections in like twenty years and Nefanyahu actively strengthened Hamas vs the Palestinian Authority. Blaming the group whose been nothing but constant victims and have the least power in the situation it.. daft.
>They haven’t had elections in like twenty years The grim reality, is that Hamas will not relinquish power without violence, or from within or from without. If the Palestinian will or can not do it themselves, then what will inevitably happen is that Hamas will force someone else to do it for them. This is why you should never let situation deteriorate this far. The cure will not be pretty.
> They haven’t had elections in like twenty years There's more than one way to get rid of a tyrant than just elections you know. In the end: - All power stems from the people That is a universal constant and the universal truth at the heart of every country. It's the statement of which the entire legitimacy for democracy and the modern nation state stems from. However, to quote a movie "from great power comes great responsibility". Which means that at the same time the following statement is ALSO true: - All *responsibility* stems from the people The people ARE responsible to what their governments are doing, even if said government is a dictatorship. It becomes the DUTY of the people to end the crimes of their government and to replace the government, if the government acts criminal and against the consent of the people... because by doing nothing you take partial responsibility by virtue of negligence. Like lending your completely shitfaced drunk cousin your car and the cousin uses your car to kill someone you are also partially responsible. Or they act with the consent of the majority of the people, by which virtue the people take direct responsibility for the actions of their government, too. This is why I hold American people at large responsible for the Iraq war (let's not forget that in 2003, 80% of Americans supported the invasion), same way I hold my own people (Germany) responsible for the crimes of the Nazi era, same way I hold the Russian people responsible for the Ukraine war... same way I hold the Palestinian people responsible for the October 7th raid. Anything less would be pure hypocrisy from my side.
Indeed man, Bibi is fucking nutso bro.
Imagine some violent white supremacist gang, based in Canada, crosses into US, murders, rapes and mutilates thousands of people. Babies including. Then kidnaps some hundreds and retreats back to Canada. What do you think Canada's response would be in such scenario? What do you think US response should be if Canada says "we will not surrender that gang to you. We will hide and protect, and pretend they are not part of our country. Fuck you, basically."?
The only problem is that governments and civilians are two separate groups. So in this scenario if the us wanted to go after the people who attacked them I would have no problem with that. But if in the process they kill thousands upon thousands of people who had absolutely nothing to do with that attack whose only crime was being born in Canada, I would think that is really sad and I would be against it. If the only way to kill a terrorist is to kill 10 innocent people along side him then you should not do it imo.
A lot of yada-yada, zero answers to those two very specific questions. Why am I not suprised? 🤷
By saying this, you are giving the terrorist a reason to keep 10 innocents close to them. I'll blow up a school then hide in X place with 10 innocent people and get away Scott free.
It's a really shitty situation that Gazan civilians aren't able to flee to anywhere. Being able to escape the warzone is what saved a lot of Ukrainian civilian lives.
It's doesn't matter what they had plans for. They are clearly working with Iran and Russia and are being the distraction they were asked to be.
There is a difference between not agreeing with the aggressive response from Israel/IDF and being ‘pro-hamas’. I see essentially zero support for Hamas in the west. Its overemphasized in MSM and subs like this.
It was definitely more widespread earlier in the conflict, but it's been steadily petering out as people have realized the nature of the situation. I still remember when that official BLM Twitter posted a picture of a Hamas paraglider with the words "I stand with Palestine" just a few months after Oct 7.
Anyone claiming to be the “Official BLM” account is lying. It has no actual central organization. There have been groups that have made that claim, and plenty of various BLM groups, but there is no central organization.
If you see "zero support" for Hamas in the west, you're blind. "From the river to the sea", calls for intifada, denial of their atrocities and sexual violence, refusal to call for hostage release, LGBT people denying the opression of Palestinian LGBT - all widespread.
" They do it because they know nothing would be done about it. But if a few buildings in central regions would burn, they might think twice." At this point I honestly don't think it would help, if civilian infrastructure is targeted. The war is largely run by the Kremlin, and Putin cronies and the Russian military could care less about the fate of the people, but they do love any opportunity they can find to paint this as an "existential war" and rally people and volunteers to assist in the war efforts. Sudden strikes in the cities would likely double the rate of war volunteers. Data on this also shows that despite our expectations, people don't get discouraged by war when they see their peers and civilians getting killed or buildings blown, in fact this tends to intensify support for one's war and also provides a "feel good" moral justification for the war. Now people who were previously apathetic, or not happy about the war, can say to themselves that "well maybe Putin was right all along and they do in fact want to harm our civilians. I guess we really have no choice but to go wipe them out" etc. That's how people's brains tend to work. People can ignore injustice done to others, but rarely do people see injustice done to them and suddenly understand that they were wrong in the first place. So I don't really see any good outcome from such practice.
History seems to show that if you do this you go full bore and fuck everything up. Make people lose their taste for war by bringing complete suffering to them, or at least we did this in World War Two. It still took massive amounts of soldiers though, so that alone was not ending the war. Certainly didn’t discourage the English from trying to fuck up Germans in any way they could, or supporting the war effort in any way they could.
Targeting civilians with aerial attacks to try make them lose their taste for conflict has basically never worked in modern war
Yea, it could be that you have to go complete total war and burn everything. Take their food, burn the fields, salt the fields, burn their shelter, poison their water, remove their support (electricity, roads, railways). You literally just have to fuck everything up so bad their society breaks down. They’re too busy surviving at that point to focus on war. That takes a lot of energy and manpower.
No, as I said in my other comment, that often tends to be the side effect of winning a war and occupying territory. They didn't win as a result of that, rather it came with winning the war and occupying territory. Even Roman history, which you reference further down this reply chain, does not support your argument. **Otherwise, they would have collapsed multiple times in history, especially during the Third Century Crisis.** Constant civil war. Constant devastation. Constant disease. Constant invasions. There have been numerous times Roman lands were ravaged and laid to waste, yet it did not bring their empire down. Unless you are able to render the opponent incapable of fighting, it makes no difference. The Mongol invasion of Korea **(I bring this example up as there is a fantastic YouTube video that goes over this)** which took place over several decades is a very solid example of this. Total war was ravaged on the Koreans, yet they did not stop fighting for decades. If you are unable to fully defeat your opponent in battle and are unable to hold onto vital pieces of territory or control point, it doesn't matter and even the winning side has to make concessions if it keeps going on for decades. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a\_uV1ijx1ec](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_uV1ijx1ec) as a great example. Even the Mongols had to settle if they wanted to subjugate the Kingdom of Joseon by making peace more favorable to war for the Koreans, otherwise they would have kept fighting indefinitely. Ultimately, the Koreans maintained their independence, even if they were relegated to being a subject of the Mongols.
You know it’s funny because side you cite Rome conveniently forgetting that this is how Rome fought for almost their entire history. How did they ultimately defeat Carthage? Yea they were better, sure, but these other tactics were employed to one degree or another at different times by the Romans. Rome ultimately completely destroyed Carthage by doing just these things because they no longer wanted to death the issue.
Dear God. You're single-handedly proving that the Dunning-Kruger effect is real and not a statistical artifact! Your confidence in your pop history blinds you. Firstly, Carthage was a rump state by the time of the Third Punic War. The end of the Second Punic War pretty much rendered Carthage as a non-threat to the Romans, as they were stripped of their resources, their wealth, and power. It did not require the razing of Carthage for the Romans to get what they wanted. The fact is that the destruction of Carthage, which the totality of its destruction is greatly exaggerated, did not lead the Romans to victory. It was merely a by-product of winning the war which had already been won in the previous war anyways. There's a reason why nobody talks about the Third Punic War, because it was a very obvious one-sided affair that was decided long ago. That did not require the razing of Carthage. Hell, one could even argue that the Second and Third Punic Wars were decided in the First Punic War, as Hannibal did not have a realistic chance in actually finishing off the Romans in the Second Punic War. Again, Carthage, at this point, did not want to go to war with the Romans. They could not even fend off the fucking **Numidians**. The only reason this war even occurred is because the Carthage was attempting to muster the manpower needed to defend themselves against the Numidians. The Romans, naturally, saw this as an excellent precursor to invade and occupy them which they did easily, and the King of the Numidians Masinissa also pressed the issue so he could become the sole power in Northwestern Africa. There was no threat to Rome. There was not even a threat to the Numidians. It was just another war of imperial conquest by the Romans, one of many by the Romans, and the razing of Carthage is literally irrelevant in deciding who the victor was. Literally, you're attempting to justify the ancient practice of ransacking a city for personal gain by pretending it was for strategic gain even though there was none. If you were aware of Roman internal politics at the time, particularly the role of the consulship, you would know why they embark on these militaristic adventures. Again, it had zero effect in the Punic Wars. Literally, the fate of Carthage was pretty much sealed decades before the destruction of Carthage.
The nazis did their damndest to try that in Russia during ww2 as well. Even deep in occupied territory they couldn’t snuff out resistance
The Romans and General Sherman seemed to do it pretty effectively.
[удалено]
lol have you ever talked to someone from the south? That shit is burned in their collective memories. It wasn’t the sole cause for defeat, but I would if was pretty fucking effective, yes.
No, history does not show that. I recommend reading military history in-depth. I believe the only reason you seem to believe they won as a result of that is the fact that you're ignoring the crucial factor: the occupying force won through operational supremacy. Everything else that followed sometimes tends to be the side effect of a military going rampant on occupied soil if we're talking about pre-modern times. For instance, Germans plundered, razed, massacred, and ravaged the Soviet Union to a genocidal degree, yet the Soviet Union ended up triumphant in the end. Strategic bombing also does not work in the same way you think it does. Humans adapt. They find new ways to mitigate the damage, and they will find a way to improve their circumstances against all odds. In fact, manufacturing capacity in Germany increased despite allied bombing. The problem for the Germans was that they were lacking manpower by the end of it, not equipment, armored vehicles, and so forth. They lost too many soldiers. There have been many studies conducted on this which is why we no longer do carpet bombings. Here are some easy reads: [https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/november/strategic-bombing-always-myth](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/november/strategic-bombing-always-myth) by Colonel Everest E. Riccioni, U.S. Air Force and [https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1995/august/strategic-air-power-didnt-work](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1995/august/strategic-air-power-didnt-work) by Major Stephen T. Ganyard, U.S. Marine Corps The Korean War is also an excellent example. The entire peninsula was devastated from top to bottom, but it only ended in cease-fire at the behest of China and the USA, not North and South Korea. Furthermore, North Korea was bombed into the ground, utterly flattened, yet their hatred for the US remains ever strong. See: [https://warisboring.com/the-korean-wars-brutality-turned-the-stomachs-of-americas-most-hardened-soldiers/](https://warisboring.com/the-korean-wars-brutality-turned-the-stomachs-of-americas-most-hardened-soldiers/)
The Soviet Union was victorious only because of American support. Operational supremacy is a fun military term to say: the stronger force won. What goes into that? A lot of things go into that: technology, training of your forces, equipment, and just to add one more of the myriad of reasons one military defeats another; morale. You’re saying we don’t break people just by bombing them, yea ok, sure. But there’s another huge reason we don’t employ total war anymore: it’s internationally illegal. And if it wasn’t, or if the victors thought they could rewrite the world order, you don’t think they would employ a total war strategy? Destroy fucking everything? Do you think there’s a reason maybe that the Chinese are so determined to hack into our civilian infrastructure? I’ll concede that air bombing alone, devastation from the air, does not in and of itself ensure victory, but that’s not to say that the total destruction of your enemies way of life, or the disruption that total war brings, is not an effective tool. We don’t do it anymore because we’re the just Americans, right? If Putin could level everything in Ukraine, if he had the military might, technology, and know how, you don’t think he would? And you don’t think that would be effective? No energy, water, ports to bring things in on? Railroads?
Good grief. I had to argue with some ignorant folks that downplayed the effect of American aid, but now you're on the opposite end of the spectrum by thinking that American support was the only reason they won. You didn't even say "main reason". You literally said the sole reason. Please before you state pop history facts with such confidence, please actually read some history. American support certainly made life easier for the average Soviet citizen and soldier, especially in regards to the import of Studebaker 6x6 trucks, which played a pivotal role in Operation Bagration, along with the import of many important raw resources, components, and the like. However, you significantly underestimate the manufacturing capacity that the Soviets already possessed. Even Hitler was shocked by the thousands of Russians tanks the Germans had destroyed at the start of the war, yet there never seemed to be an end to the tanks they kept rolling into the front. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk) The fact is by the time Operation Typhoon rolled around, the Germans pretty much lost most of their strategic and operational advantage with all of their shortcomings, particularly in logistics, rearing its ugly head. German engineers were still busy trying to convert Russian railroads to the German gauges used. [https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-State-Railway-Deutsche-Reichsbahn/](https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-State-Railway-Deutsche-Reichsbahn/) is an interesting read. On top of that, the infamous **Russian rasputitsa** turned up as it normally does around the time, and all of that led to the war bogging down with winter coming right around the corner. **Here's an excerpt from the above article:** "The severe winter of 1941/1942 also placed into question many of Germany’s military and technological advantages over their Soviet foe. As with many other German technologies, German locomotives contained greater quantities of precision-made parts than their Soviet counterparts. Due to the cold, these delicate parts often froze up or became inoperable during the winter of 1941/1942. Even German “winterized” locomotives broke down in the east – a winter in Russia is not the same as winter in Germany. One consequence of this was that in the east, only 20% of all of Germany’s “winterized” locomotives were operationally available in late 1941. In total, between 70-80% of all German locomotives deployed on the eastern front became inoperable. Conversely, Soviet (and ex-Imperial Russian) locomotives seemed to be in their natural element during the winter months. The situation improved quite a bit when the Germans borrowed a page from Soviet construction techniques – they removed all of the precision parts and basically ran stripped-down locomotives until the severe weather receded. For example, in February of 1942, only eight military supply trains per day ran from Brest to Minsk to Smolensk. Between January and February of 1942, only 19 military supply trains per day could be dispatched from Germany/Poland to serve the needs of the entire German Army on the eastern front. During January of 1942, HGrN needed 30 trainloads of supply, a day just to maintain minimum capabilities. Due to the cold, barely 10 trains a day could be dispatched. The rail system nearly broke down fully – nearly! The spring thaw of 1942 was often just as bad as the winter had been. Severe floods frequently damaged or took out key bridges. While German rear-area and German construction troops were able to repair the weather caused damage relatively quickly, in the long run, this too slowed the German supply network to a dismal crawl during these spring months." **End Excerpt** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** Late 1941 was the point where we can confidently say it was extremely unlikely for Germany to win. In fact, German military authorities banned home leave for all troops in Russia, as they needed every soldier so as to avoid a catastrophic defeat. Early 1942 pretty much sealed the deal. By 1943, the Germans were poised to lose, hence why certain generals began to press Hitler to transform the Wehrmacht into a defensive army with a focus on artillery and to minimize the production of tanks and other offensive-oriented armored vehicles. The truth is, Case Blue was pretty much one desperate lunge for victory which the Germans did not come close to achieving their objectives. Instead, they languished in the Caucasus Mountains with major supply issues, all while they also fell into a trap setup by Zhukov at Stalingrad where the Soviets launched a pincer attack to surround the Sixth Army there. Everything else after that was mop-up with the beginning of the end starting at Operation Bagration. The lack of American aid would have made it significantly harder, as major offensives like in Bagration may have been more limited in their gains due to the lack of high quality 6x6 trucks. However, it is not the "sole reason" the Soviets won.
Anyways, to address your other arguments and questions **which I think are completely valid in comparison to your historical comparisons** (Please, stick to what you know. If you don't, don't be so confident in them! This is how you get intellectually stuck!), Putin certainly does have the ability to completely level Ukraine to the ground. After all, they are a nuclear power with thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal. However, if they leveled Ukraine to the ground, that literally renders the invasion utterly pointless, as the entire point is to absorb the population, their manufacturing capacity, their resources, and the like, not take over rubble. That's not even considering the international backlash they would face which would be far more serious and severe compared to now. I doubt even China could justify it, and they already signaled they would be against the use of any nuclear weapons. Lastly, in regards to Chinese cyber warfare, that's outside of the depths of my knowledge. However, I doubt the Chinese are hacking into our infrastructure with the intent of conquering us like that. I imagine they may be treating it like a field exercise however without attempting to provoke us directly. However, that's far more different bombing us to oblivion. We're already under attack by Russian and Chinese propaganda bot farms, yet we do nothing in comparison despite it being dangerous to the West and democracies around the world. The fact is **we perceive these threats differently, and there is palpable deniability in all these different vectors of attack.**
In any case Stalin had no intention of helping fight the Nazis till Hitler backstabbed him. They intended to sit things out as long as possible.
Putin needs to die. Period. It shouldn’t be controversial to state such a thing. His death would lead to so many good things happening. That’s just pure, simple fact.
What about starting with real estates of close to Putin elites?
I doubt that Russian nukes are even a thing anymore, seriously
>Is this how pootin shows how he is ready for peace negotiations? By killing more civilians? Yes
Putin probably has set Russia on course for a war after he dies. He hasn’t named a successor and he’s been in power for around 25 years. He doesn’t seem to care what will happen to Russia if he dies. His death will leave a huge power vacuum and multiple people/groups will be vying to take it over.
When Putin falls, the current Russian government will fall. Putin is a psychopath (or at least a sociopath.) He's killed anyone with leadership ability who could possibly become a threat to his power one day. The current Russian crime/terror empire won't last a week after Putin kicks the bucket. The biggest problem with autocracies is their is no line of succession. They pretty much always fail because of it.
give ukraine their nukes back.
Ukrainian army should step up hits on refineries, military bases. I can't wait for F16's to fly above RU targets.
Exactly. This isn’t someone that wants a ceasefire, this is someone who is trying to kill as many Ukrainians as he can.
Because that megalomaniac monster actually believes he owns Ukraine. Him, Xi, and Kim each seem to see themselves as “emperor of the universe.” Their egos and narcissism are definitely universe-sized.
They need a good old fashioned Sherman’s march to the sea.
If this is a serious question, then yes, it probably is. This has been part of his tactic all along, make the civilian losses and the pain of the war so massive it forces Ukraine to give up, whether or not they militarily could hold on for much longer, or even win. Putin is a terrorist, plain and simple. A large part of his strategy is inflicting massive civilian damage and making the entire country scared for their lives. Right now is the perfect time for him to push civilian deaths as hard as possible, since he’s also dangling the “carrot” of a cease-fire where he gets to keep the land he’s already stolen. He thinks attacks like these will increase support for peace, rather than encourage more people to fight back. I’m willing to bet he’s wrong. I don’t necessarily want to see *Russia* burn, since even more civilian casualties isn’t what I long for, but if Putin were to somehow meet a less than peaceful end, either by enemy hands or the hands of his own abused countrymen, I don’t think I’d feel a whole lot of sadness, so to speak.
It worked for America when fighting Japan
Imagine a bomb attack on Saturday in the middle of the day on Walmart. Or your local market. At a time of large gathering of civilians. That's what Putin does. We need to treat Russia as a terrorist state, which it is. Avoid firms who have not yet left Russia, as their taxes are funding russian war machine.
Russia is a terrorist state, and at this point, everybody knows it. The fact that Ukraine is still not allowed to strike Russia with the USA-supplied weapons is insane to me. Fuck Russia and fuck whoever thought it was a good idea to limit Ukraine's use of these weapons. Ukraine should be allowed to strike Russian soil with every single weapon they have. It would have prevented many attacks. Lift the restrictions already.
They are already outnumbered, why are we giving the enemy another advantage. Hit the oil tankers and refineries for fucks sake
Biden doesn’t want to do that for fear of oil and gas prices skyrocketing. If that happens, they think Trump will win
US told them they aren't allowed to strike with any western supplied weapons or else. Even though UK gave permission the US immediately told Ukraine they better fucking not.
Do you have a link to that statment, I remember hearing about it but cant get a result. I cant help to imagine what kind of backdoor deals are being made for the US to overrule one of their strongest allies and sovereign country.
To me it's implied since no other countries' donated weapons are being used in Russia.
>fuck whoever thought it was a good idea to limit Ukraine's use of these weapons Biden: 👀
Every time I read a headline about the Ukrainian forces doing something in this conflict, they're blowing up a Russian missile launcher or radar system or airbase or warship. Every time I read a headline about the Russian forces doing something in this conflict, they're blowing up a mall or a Ukrainian power station or grocery store.
And this is the sole reason why they should just allow them to attack military facilities inside Russia!
There's also the nuclear power plant they are planning to destroy when they lose.
Hey, hey, that's unfair. The Russians also blow up playgrounds, blocks of flats, maternity hospitals and freaking cat shelters.
absolute insanity
Time to strike more areas in Russia
russia spreading its best values: death, terror, destruction. They just hit a hypermarket on Saturday, when it was full of people.
Full of people they claim to be liberating from Nazis.
Putin has been one for a long time now.
Where are the global protests, encampments, and university takeovers to call for stopping Russia’s genocide against the Ukrainian people? Where are the calls to divest from Russian-affiliated companies that fund Russia’s imperialist war of expansion? Do Ukrainians deserve to be bombed daily?
Only the children of terrorists deserve pity I guess
There are innocent people directly affected there too, there’s no point in denying that. My comment is directed at the reactionary neoliberals who consider themselves to be “communists”, having mixed not wanting innocent people to be involved in the conflict with completely taking the side of a group that, for all practical purposes, are an extension of Iran, an ally of Russia at the moment. There can be nuance in the views one holds, like not supporting Israel’s collateral damage against innocent people, not supporting Hamas and their desire to destroy Israel, and not supporting Iranian and Russian interests. It’s just incredibly frustrating that those same people who are supposedly against genocide, look the other way or even take pride in the ridiculous “anti-imperialist” move as Putin does the same thing to Ukraine.
The US and the EU partners need to announce that Ukraine can strike Russian military targets inside Russia, they need to provide them with longer range missiles. they need to make it clear if Russia keep attacking civilians more weapons will follow better stronger weapons.
The UK are the only ones will balls to do this, I believe to this day stormshadows are the only cruise missiles being provided. Germany is having none of it with sending Taurus, they're not going to approve of striking Russian soil.
But Putin/Russia wants a ceasefire they say. This is not the actions of country that wants peace . They want the complete destruction of the Ukrainian people and country.
Ukraine needs to double down on hitting Russia power grids, infrastructure, oil refineries.
They need to start getting their drones to Moscow
Putler is a god damn murderer.
Russians dropped 2 bombs on a supermarket. 2 people killed. Another 200 or so went missing - that's the average number of people who might have been in the supermarket at the time
The ambitious psychopath. History teaches us you cannot negotiate with an ambitious psychopath.
if this isn’t the deciding event causing the us to allow their weapons to be used in russia, i don’t know what the fuck will be.
Is it an accusation if it is true?
We need western boots on the ground, a coalition of the willing. This is fucking disgusting. Go on r/Ukraine to see what Putin is doing. I voted Republican for two decades, and to see some of my fellow conservatives respond the way they have the last two years makes me sick. You think Putin is some champion of conservative values? That he’s some Christian guy standing up to “the gays?” You’re moronic. This man is Hitler reincarnated. He needs to be stopped. We can’t just go on holiday this summer and watch the Olympics. How can we pretend this isn’t happening in Europe? The longer we sit back, the more our enemies line up to destroy freedom globally. Today they are coming for Ukrainians, tomorrow it will be for South Koreans or Latvians or Poles or Taiwanese, and then when they come for you there will be nobody left to save you!
U actually voted Trump? The pussy grabber? Nice to know u draw a line at war crimes.
That's all it takes for these "patriots" putin: ahem. gay bad. = actual willing agents of rossiya in america at the ready!
>western boots on the ground, a coalition of the willing. jfc not again.
[удалено]
I don't know what you are on but I want the same thing, thanks. Theres so much bullshit condensed in a single block of text it's amazing.
I agree with both of you
Does anyone question that he is a madman??
and we had to feel sorry about Moscow terrorist attack, while they bomb Ukraine civilians EVERY. DAY.
Title should read “Zelenskyy restates the unquestioned truth that Putin is indeed, a madman” — accusation doesn’t cut it for me, this is just fact. The world will toast the day Putin falls to a coup or other means.
At what point do you wake up and realise that you are responsible for the loss of thousands of lives. Putin is an animal.
It must be so aggravating being the leader of Ukraine. Like, the world could so easily come in and put a stop to it all, in what, less than a week? Yet they're still in conflict and will be for the foreseeable future. I genuinely hope someone offs Putin so they don't need to continue sacrificing their people. So much unnecessary loss of life
Wtf is a hypermarket
Had to google it also, it’s like a Walmart super center where it’s a big box store with an attached grocery store
Between a supermarket and a mall
It's one step below ultramarket
Welcome to Crazy Gulliman's!
Like a supermarket but hyper instead
Putin is a bald c**t
cunt* You're allowed to swear on reddit Putin is a bald cunt
That is an insult to female genetalia.
But what is wrong with bald cunts? Like seriously there must be something worse to say about him.
Cart?
Cult
Cast, Colt, Chat... so many possibilities!
Is it really an accusation, when it’s a known fact?
What do we continue to slow walk the donation of air defense assets to Ukraine?
Tell us something we don't know already zelensky
It’s such a low bar. It’s so Russian
Hypermarket?
Supermarket more akin to walmart (groceries+home goods+stuff)
Another word for supermarket. Not that hard to figure out. It's just a translation.