Let’s have a war!

[jfish26]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

Dude, it's: (1) right click on text, (2) left click on "Translate to English".

Dmitry Medvedev
✔
Some time ago I wrote here in my TG channel: “A nuclear power cannot lose a war.” The snotty Anglo-American fosterlings immediately jumped out with heart-rending cries: “No, that’s not true at all, even the USA lost in wars.” This is an obvious lie. I wasn’t talking about Vietnam, Afghanistan or dozens of other places in which the Americans waged colonial wars of conquest. I wrote about historical Wars in which the defense of one’s Fatherland takes place. Your land, your people, your values. These are the kind of wars that nuclear powers have never lost to anyone.

Why am I writing about this again? Yes, I read the words of all sorts of Pistorius and Shapps and think: are they really such assholes or are they just pretending? “The world cannot afford a Russian victory in this war.” Like this? That's how.

OK. Let’s imagine for a moment that Russia lost, and “Ukraine with its allies” won. What would such a victory be like for our enemies – the neo-Nazis and their Western sponsors? Well, as has been said many times, a return to the borders of 1991. That is, the direct and irreversible collapse of present-day Russia, which, according to the Constitution, includes new territories. And then there was a violent civil war with the final disappearance of our country from the world map. Tens of millions of victims. The death of our future. The collapse of everything in the world.

And now the main question: do these idiots really believe that the people of Russia will swallow such a division of their country? That we will all think something like this: “Well, alas, this happened. They won. Today's Russia has disappeared. It’s a pity, of course, but we must continue to live in a collapsing, dying country, since a nuclear war is much more terrible for us than the death of our loved ones, our children, our Russia...”? And that the leadership of the state, headed by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, in this case will tremble in its hand to make the most difficult decisions?

So here it is. It will be completely different. The collapse of Russia will have much more dire consequences than the results of an ordinary, even the most protracted war. Because attempts to return Russia to the borders of 1991 will lead to only one thing. Towards a global war with Western countries using the entire strategic arsenal of our state. In Kyiv, Berlin, London, Washington. To all other beautiful historical places that have long been included in the flight targets of our nuclear triad.

Will we have the courage to do this if the disappearance of a thousand-year-old country, our great Motherland, is at stake, and the sacrifices made by the people of Russia over the centuries will be in vain?
The answer is obvious.

So it’s better to return everything before it’s too late. Or we will return it ourselves with maximum losses for the enemy. Like Avdeevka. Our warriors are heroes!
t.me/medvedev_telegram
/448
1.6Mviews
Feb 18 at 04:31

[jfish26]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

And, to this part.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The strategy - which, so we're all on the same page here, was one of maintaining distance, non-provocation, proportionality, restraint, and risking no US servicemembers - was working fine until the Putin Parrots in the House decided to gum the gears.

So which is it, man? Should the US, fearing this outcome, have gone in directly, and harder?

Or simply stayed out altogether?

[ousdahl]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

Dude, it's: (1) right click on text, (2) left click on "Translate to English".

Dmitry Medvedev
✔
Some time ago I wrote here in my TG channel: “A nuclear power cannot lose a war.” The snotty Anglo-American fosterlings immediately jumped out with heart-rending cries: “No, that’s not true at all, even the USA lost in wars.” This is an obvious lie. I wasn’t talking about Vietnam, Afghanistan or dozens of other places in which the Americans waged colonial wars of conquest. I wrote about historical Wars in which the defense of one’s Fatherland takes place. Your land, your people, your values. These are the kind of wars that nuclear powers have never lost to anyone.

Why am I writing about this again? Yes, I read the words of all sorts of Pistorius and Shapps and think: are they really such assholes or are they just pretending? “The world cannot afford a Russian victory in this war.” Like this? That's how.

OK. Let’s imagine for a moment that Russia lost, and “Ukraine with its allies” won. What would such a victory be like for our enemies – the neo-Nazis and their Western sponsors? Well, as has been said many times, a return to the borders of 1991. That is, the direct and irreversible collapse of present-day Russia, which, according to the Constitution, includes new territories. And then there was a violent civil war with the final disappearance of our country from the world map. Tens of millions of victims. The death of our future. The collapse of everything in the world.

And now the main question: do these idiots really believe that the people of Russia will swallow such a division of their country? That we will all think something like this: “Well, alas, this happened. They won. Today's Russia has disappeared. It’s a pity, of course, but we must continue to live in a collapsing, dying country, since a nuclear war is much more terrible for us than the death of our loved ones, our children, our Russia...”? And that the leadership of the state, headed by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, in this case will tremble in its hand to make the most difficult decisions?

So here it is. It will be completely different. The collapse of Russia will have much more dire consequences than the results of an ordinary, even the most protracted war. Because attempts to return Russia to the borders of 1991 will lead to only one thing. Towards a global war with Western countries using the entire strategic arsenal of our state. In Kyiv, Berlin, London, Washington. To all other beautiful historical places that have long been included in the flight targets of our nuclear triad.

Will we have the courage to do this if the disappearance of a thousand-year-old country, our great Motherland, is at stake, and the sacrifices made by the people of Russia over the centuries will be in vain?
The answer is obvious.

So it’s better to return everything before it’s too late. Or we will return it ourselves with maximum losses for the enemy. Like Avdeevka. Our warriors are heroes!
t.me/medvedev_telegram
/448
1.6Mviews
Feb 18 at 04:31

yea bro that sure does sound like Russian propaganda

you guys, even our previously proud patriot Fish has been corrupted by the Kremlin! Putin's reach knows no bounds!

[Sparko]

Make no mistake: the GOP went nuts and sold out our allies and country. And Ous: you are no better.

[TDub]

I think we're actually at the point in the war thread where you've lost all credibility, good will, benefit of the doubt, and leniency and instead decided to double and triple down on demonstrating to everyone that you're a fuckin idiot.


ok, enough of this thread today.

[ousdahl]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

And, to this part.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The strategy - which, so we're all on the same page here, was one of maintaining distance, non-provocation, proportionality, restraint, and risking no US servicemembers - was working fine until the Putin Parrots in the House decided to gum the gears.

we've already given bajillions in aid packages and training to Ukraine, which has resulted in Ukraine loosing 1/5 of its territory to Russia anyway.

What makes you think this latest aid package will be any different?

also, maintaining distance, non-provocation, proportionality, restraint, lulz

So which is it, man? Should the US, fearing this outcome, have gone in directly, and harder?

wait, nm, fish is back to being a proud American patriot again. Now....Let's Have A War!

Or simply stayed out altogether?

wait, nm again, fish is back to parroting Putin.

[jfish26]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

Dude, it's: (1) right click on text, (2) left click on "Translate to English".

Dmitry Medvedev
✔
Some time ago I wrote here in my TG channel: “A nuclear power cannot lose a war.” The snotty Anglo-American fosterlings immediately jumped out with heart-rending cries: “No, that’s not true at all, even the USA lost in wars.” This is an obvious lie. I wasn’t talking about Vietnam, Afghanistan or dozens of other places in which the Americans waged colonial wars of conquest. I wrote about historical Wars in which the defense of one’s Fatherland takes place. Your land, your people, your values. These are the kind of wars that nuclear powers have never lost to anyone.

Why am I writing about this again? Yes, I read the words of all sorts of Pistorius and Shapps and think: are they really such assholes or are they just pretending? “The world cannot afford a Russian victory in this war.” Like this? That's how.

OK. Let’s imagine for a moment that Russia lost, and “Ukraine with its allies” won. What would such a victory be like for our enemies – the neo-Nazis and their Western sponsors? Well, as has been said many times, a return to the borders of 1991. That is, the direct and irreversible collapse of present-day Russia, which, according to the Constitution, includes new territories. And then there was a violent civil war with the final disappearance of our country from the world map. Tens of millions of victims. The death of our future. The collapse of everything in the world.

And now the main question: do these idiots really believe that the people of Russia will swallow such a division of their country? That we will all think something like this: “Well, alas, this happened. They won. Today's Russia has disappeared. It’s a pity, of course, but we must continue to live in a collapsing, dying country, since a nuclear war is much more terrible for us than the death of our loved ones, our children, our Russia...”? And that the leadership of the state, headed by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, in this case will tremble in its hand to make the most difficult decisions?

So here it is. It will be completely different. The collapse of Russia will have much more dire consequences than the results of an ordinary, even the most protracted war. Because attempts to return Russia to the borders of 1991 will lead to only one thing. Towards a global war with Western countries using the entire strategic arsenal of our state. In Kyiv, Berlin, London, Washington. To all other beautiful historical places that have long been included in the flight targets of our nuclear triad.

Will we have the courage to do this if the disappearance of a thousand-year-old country, our great Motherland, is at stake, and the sacrifices made by the people of Russia over the centuries will be in vain?
The answer is obvious.

So it’s better to return everything before it’s too late. Or we will return it ourselves with maximum losses for the enemy. Like Avdeevka. Our warriors are heroes!
t.me/medvedev_telegram
/448
1.6Mviews
Feb 18 at 04:31

yea bro that sure does sound like Russian propaganda

you guys, even our previously proud patriot Fish has been corrupted by the Kremlin! Putin's reach knows no bounds!

I genuinely don't know what you are trying to say here. I simply posted the primary source text that formed the basis of the article you were questioning.

[japhy]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort

I think most of us have given up on that notion some time ago.

[jfish26]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

And, to this part.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The strategy - which, so we're all on the same page here, was one of maintaining distance, non-provocation, proportionality, restraint, and risking no US servicemembers - was working fine until the Putin Parrots in the House decided to gum the gears.

we've already given bajillions in aid packages and training to Ukraine, which has resulted in Ukraine loosing 1/5 of its territory to Russia anyway.

What makes you think this latest aid package will be any different?

also, maintaining distance, non-provocation, proportionality, restraint, lulz

So which is it, man? Should the US, fearing this outcome, have gone in directly, and harder?

wait, nm, fish is back to being a proud American patriot again. Now....Let's Have A War!

Or simply stayed out altogether?

wait, nm again, fish is back to parroting Putin.

You continue to flail around over fairly cut-and-dry things.

Russia is the aggressor. Russia made war on Ukraine, and (as happens in wars of aggression of strong versus comparatively weak), took territory. Frankly, it's a testament to the will and toughness of Ukraine and its people that they didn't break immediately (which was Russia's plan).

Ukraine, as it received materiel from the West, first defended against Russia's offensive actions and then initiated counteroffensive actions to win back control of its sovereign territory.

Those counteroffensive actions (as happens in wars) stalled and then, particularly as Western support (specifically, OUR support) slowed to a trickle, failed. And now, as you well note, Ukraine is back on the defensive.

I don't understand what is complicated about this.

The only reason to bring all the flotsam and jetsam into this discussion of the present status of the war,* over and over and over again, is to muddy the waters.

* I can't believe I have to say this out loud, again, but: NOBODY is saying Ukraine or the US is historically of entirely clean hands. This discussion is about the present status of the war, and your need to make the fact of "Ukraine loosing 1/5 of its territory to Russia anyway" support something it does not.

[ousdahl]

Dude, it's: (1) right click on text, (2) left click on "Translate to English".

yea bro that sure does sound like Russian propaganda

you guys, even our previously proud patriot Fish has been corrupted by the Kremlin! Putin's reach knows no bounds!

I genuinely don't know what you are trying to say here. I simply posted the primary source text that formed the basis of the article you were questioning.

Again, I view every bit of information in this thread with a certain skepticism - particularly anything coming from the Russians.

I just dunno how many pearls are really worth clutching for some Russian former politician/current tabloid bro is serving up some hysteria.

[jhawks99]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

And, to this part.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The strategy - which, so we're all on the same page here, was one of maintaining distance, non-provocation, proportionality, restraint, and risking no US servicemembers - was working fine until the Putin Parrots in the House decided to gum the gears.

So which is it, man? Should the US, fearing this outcome, have gone in directly, and harder?

Or simply stayed out altogether?

While I agree with you, saying that a WWI style stalemate for 2 years isn't exactly working well.

[jfish26]

yea bro that sure does sound like Russian propaganda

you guys, even our previously proud patriot Fish has been corrupted by the Kremlin! Putin's reach knows no bounds!

I genuinely don't know what you are trying to say here. I simply posted the primary source text that formed the basis of the article you were questioning.

Again, I view every bit of information in this thread with a certain skepticism - particularly anything coming from the Russians.

I just dunno how many pearls are really worth clutching for some Russian former politician/current tabloid bro is serving up some hysteria.

This is a good example of how the whole thing works.

Having been sold a bill of goods, you consider Russia's war of aggression on another sovereign's civilians to be something less than black-and-white wrong.

Because you consider Russia's war of aggression on another sovereign's civilians to be something less than black-and-white wrong, you minimize (pearl-clutching; "hysteria") the direct statements of the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia (Putin is Chairman) when he makes nuclear threats against the West.

Ask a Ukrainian whether or not Russia's threats should be taken seriously.

[jfish26]

here we are at the point in the war thread in which I'm given the suggestion to make the effort to go translate Russian propaganda

and now wishing for some strategy beyond the one that has yielded significant Ukrainian territory gains for Russia is "irrelevant nonsense"

And, to this part.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The strategy - which, so we're all on the same page here, was one of maintaining distance, non-provocation, proportionality, restraint, and risking no US servicemembers - was working fine until the Putin Parrots in the House decided to gum the gears.

So which is it, man? Should the US, fearing this outcome, have gone in directly, and harder?

Or simply stayed out altogether?

While I agree with you, saying that a WWI style stalemate for 2 years isn't exactly working well.

It would not have been my chosen strategy - but it certainly worked more "fine" than simply not helping at all.

[jhawks99]

Agreed

[jfish26]

Agreed

For my money (which it is; yours, too) I would have had F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS in Ukraine's hands a year ago. Even if Russia could have bleated that those things have offensive potential.

[ousdahl]

Russia is the aggressor. Russia made war on Ukraine, and (as happens in wars of aggression of strong versus comparatively weak), took territory. Frankly, it's a testament to the will and toughness of Ukraine and its people that they didn't break immediately (which was Russia's plan).

Ukraine, as it received materiel from the West

with Ukraine revving materiel from the West for like at least 8 years BEFORE Russia invaded.

And that's not to say Russia is not the aggressor! Russia is so totally the aggressor! I'm just not sure Russia is the ONLY aggressor here.

first defended against Russia's offensive actions and then initiated counteroffensive actions to win back control of its sovereign territory.

and both Ukraine's defense, and counter offenses, have mostly been failures (as far as either preventing or gaining back territory from Russia)

Those counteroffensive actions (as happens in wars) stalled and then, particularly as Western support (specifically, OUR support) slowed to a trickle, failed. And now, as you well note, Ukraine is back on the defensive.

so the issue then is our support slowed to a trickle? Would the solution to that then be, some carte blanche support for Ukraine rather than the piecemeal? Or something more aggressive and direct yet?

I don't understand what is complicated about this.

The only reason to bring all the flotsam and jetsam into this discussion of the present status of the war,* over and over and over again, is to muddy the waters.

* I can't believe I have to say this out loud, again, but: NOBODY is saying Ukraine or the US is historically of entirely clean hands. This discussion is about the present status of the war, and your need to make the fact of "Ukraine loosing 1/5 of its territory to Russia anyway" support something it does not.

and I can't believe I have to say THIS out loud, AGAIN, but: if you can be cognizant of the fact that neither the Ukraine nor the US is "historically of entirely clean hands," then actually apply that cognizance to the discussion about the present status of the war!

cuz this angle you and so many others here are taking like, "yea the US and Ukraine have historically been dirty-handed about so much other stuff, but no doubt they're fighting the good fight now!" is just, like, holy-shit levels of cognitive dissonance.

[ousdahl]

Agreed

For my money (which it is; yours, too) I would have had F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS in Ukraine's hands a year ago. Even if Russia could have bleated that those things have offensive potential.

ah, yes, so something more aggressive yet, indeed.

heck, maybe we should have had (even more than we did) US and NATO troops by the tens of thousands on the eastern Ukrainian front lines by no later than March 2022.

Or heck heck heck, maybe we should have just preemptively nuked Moscow already!

[ousdahl]

Agreed

For my money (which it is; yours, too) I would have had F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS in Ukraine's hands a year ago. Even if Russia could have bleated that those things have offensive potential.

can you seriously not thing of anything better to do with your money?

BTW, I've got some oceanfront property in Idaho I'd like to sell you.

some Russian tabloid bro says Putin's gonna nuke us all unless you buy it.

[jfish26]

Agreed

For my money (which it is; yours, too) I would have had F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS in Ukraine's hands a year ago. Even if Russia could have bleated that those things have offensive potential.

ah, yes, so something more aggressive yet, indeed.

heck, maybe we should have had (even more than we did) US and NATO troops by the tens of thousands on the eastern Ukrainian front lines by no later than March 2022.

Or heck heck heck, maybe we should have just preemptively nuked Moscow already!

And to think you accuse others of gaslighting and similar rhetorical tricks.

(What's especially sad is that you cannot, or do not want to, see the through-line connecting our restraint in providing things like F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS to this 1/5 thing you keep coming back to. In other words, you are using the foreseeable RESULT of our restraint (in combination with Putin's capture of the GOP) to criticize ... Biden?)

[jfish26]

Agreed

For my money (which it is; yours, too) I would have had F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS in Ukraine's hands a year ago. Even if Russia could have bleated that those things have offensive potential.

can you seriously not thing of anything better to do with your money?

BTW, I've got some oceanfront property in Idaho I'd like to sell you.

some Russian tabloid bro says Putin's gonna nuke us all unless you buy it.

Why is it that you continue to say things like this, when it is just obviously untrue and that takes two seconds to figure out? Is it the same reason you acted like clicking a mouse twice to translate the guy's post to English was rocket science?