NFR Ukraine...Little Did I Know

Non-fishing related
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hadn't read that but good points about Putin's "justification" for the invasion.

On that note, I like checking multiple sources and came across the tidbit below that puts Putin's supposed "De-nazifying" (Pot meets Kettle) motives into perspective. While clearly a massively inflated ruse, that has noting to do with his real reasons for invading - it does uncover a kernel of truth. One that easily plays on Nazi fears that are deeply seated in Russia.


And, maybe I missed mention of this on western media outlets, but I can see it being "omitted" to avoid undermining support for Ukraine. However unfortunate, people with this mentality still exist, and there are extremist minority groups in every culture. Regardless, Ukraine deserves full international support. Their survival as a nation, and becoming a fully recognized member of the free world is the best way to make this thinking a thing of the past.
I think Putin has been planting the "de-nazification" narrative because he anticipates that hard right fascist sympathizers and militias will travel to Ukraine to get some real life combat training. If/when that happens, Putin will say "see, we told you so" and try to use the presence of fascists fighting on the Ukraine side to drive a narrative that there is not just one bad guy on one side and try to divide public opinion.

 
I think Putin has been planting the "de-nazification" narrative because he anticipates that hard right fascist sympathizers and militias will travel to Ukraine to get some real life combat training. If/when that happens, Putin will say "see, we told you so" and try to use the presence of fascists fighting on the Ukraine side to drive a narrative that there is not just one bad guy on one side and try to divide public opinion.


Yikes.
 
I screwed up and skimmed this the first time I saw it. Ignore the Tacticool/Preppercool slant and focus on the actual information shared there.


Draw your own conclusions of course, but it appears that we did try to warn Ukraine months ago.
Also, the real reason they wanted Kherson so badly is revealed, too.
 
He has been mentioned in prior posts but I can not get enough of him: Michael McFaul - former US ambassador to Russia. If I see him on TV, I stop in my tracks and watch his entire session on the news segment. I hope he is coordinating with the US/EU/NATO and providing what he knows.
 
He has been mentioned in prior posts but I can not get enough of him: Michael McFaul - former US ambassador to Russia. If I see him on TV, I stop in my tracks and watch his entire session on the news segment. I hope he is coordinating with the US/EU/NATO and providing what he knows.
I learned a lot listening to Julia Ioffe


J
 
Just saw an interesting analysis (unfortunately did not catch the fellows name, though I have seen him before) on why NATO involvement at this stage would not be wise. It is not one I had heard articulated previously, but it struck me as very insightful. He suggested that NATO involvement would not save Ukraine, in fact, Ukraine would become a bigger battlefield with even more destruction, with greater casualties, but further to that, it would give Putin the enemy he so desperately wants and needs. Currently, the Russian people are starting to rise up in protest, there is not great support at home for this war, Ukraine is not seen as a threat or enemy; NATO involvement would change that, Putin would be proven correct, ie, Ukraine is a NATO puppet and a threat to Russia; the Russian people would then rally around Putin and his war.

Unfortunately, I found this very a plausible and persuasive argument.

I again think we need incentives to get Putin to reverse course. I am in no way suggesting he get a free ride, I suspect whether he continues or pulls out he is not long for his current position. It is not going well for him. Don't give the Russian people a reason to rally to his side, the more they hate him, the better.

I guess you can't have a glorious world war if nobody shows up. Interesting but worthy line of thinking.
 
Serious question:

Can somebody explain to me why they would shell urban areas.

Is it just for demoralizing the resurgence?

Military targets and infrastructure I get (strategically). I just cant understand why you would blow up an apartment building....
 
Serious question:

Can somebody explain to me why they would shell urban areas.

Is it just for demoralizing the resurgence?

Military targets and infrastructure I get (strategically). I just cant understand why you would blow up an apartment building....

Been wondering the same thing. They probably have some twisted logical reason (even though that seems especially stupid in a globally connected world). It probably boils down to something much simpler like Putin having a tiny weiner.
 
Serious question:

Can somebody explain to me why they would shell urban areas.

Is it just for demoralizing the resurgence?

Military targets and infrastructure I get (strategically). I just cant understand why you would blow up an apartment building....
It's "laying siege", the idea is to pummel the population into a state of constant sleepless terror. You create a state of not knowing if the next bomb will destroy your home and kill you and your family. The brutal, extremely cruel method of warfare is very old, literally thousands of years old. Giant boulders launched from catapults were among the original siege projectiles, some coated in flaming oil. Different era, same terror raining down on the victims.

Putin is doing this to fill the Ukrainians with terror and get them to demand their leaders surrender to him. He's betting that eventually Zelensky will tire of seeing his country destroyed and his people killed and he'll raise the white flag.

A couple military experts today surmised that Russia is using rockets to do this because they can fire those from 50-70 miles away. They need to get within 10 or so miles to shell the cities and their giant convoy is bogged down. The missiles he's using are brutal in their effectiveness. And he's using weapons banned by the Geneva convention. If anyone still thinks Putin cares AT ALL about world opinion, well.....that has been clearly answered.

the city of Kherson has fallen. Over a million people have fled the country, with many more desperately waiting to escape.

Some Russian with a soul, maybe someone part Ukrainian in his inner circle, needs to take him out. Somehow, some way. Putin needs to take a permanent dirt nap. What type of human launches an unprovoked attack and then bombs a children's hospital? A kindergarten? Civilians in an apartment? This has gone completely beyond "conventional" warfare.
 
France has seized a yacht owned by Russian oligarch Igor Sechin, the French finance ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

Another yacht bites the dust...
;)
 
"And he's using weapons banned by the Geneva convention. If anyone still thinks Putin cares AT ALL about world opinion, well.....that has been clearly answered."

Can someone explain to me why weapons are legal and some are considered "illegal".

It's god damn war?

Explain war crimes to while your at it.

again. It's WAR. I'm not advocating for war by saying this, im just finding it absurd.
 
The best I can do is,this ;

Some weapons and their use are considered overkill. Such as using a 14.5 mm anti aircraft gun to shoot attacking soldiers.

Paratroops are supposedly protected under these laws, too. as long as they are swinging under that canopy you're not supposed to shoot them, they're considered non combatants. However, you can shoot at their equipment during this same period.
 
The best I can do is,this ;

Some weapons and their use are considered overkill. Such as using a 14.5 mm anti aircraft gun to shoot attacking soldiers.

Paratroops are supposedly protected under these laws, too. as long as they are swinging under that canopy you're not supposed to shoot them, they're considered non combatants. However, you can shoot at their equipment during this same period.

I know It would do me a great service to read up on this (and I will). But my answer is still

It's war. You would think it would be "against the rules" to try and seize someone else's country but 🤷‍♂️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top