Originally posted by pchang
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Geronimo View Post
What don't you like or understand about the reason you quoted from Plato?
I do not believe the Russians blew up the pipeline.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Egbert View Post
It seems odd that Russia would spend enormous sums building a pipeline to transport gas to Europe and then blows up that pipeline because it might get sued for not delivering gas to Europe does not sound terribly sensible. This is based on conjecture not evidence.
I do not believe the Russians blew up the pipeline.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geronimo View PostSerb, from 2014 to February 2022 some 14,000 people are estimated to have died in the war in the Donbass. What fraction of those people do you think died as a result of genocidal attacks targeting civilians?
How is the special operation going to be an effective response to that?
What would long term success look like?
What if large numbers of civilians in the conquered territories don't like living under Russian rule?
Some things are simply not acceptable.
I never have understood what you think the special operation is any good for.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Egbert View Post
It seems odd that Russia would spend enormous sums building a pipeline to transport gas to Europe and then blows up that pipeline because it might get sued for not delivering gas to Europe does not sound terribly sensible. This is based on conjecture not evidence.
I do not believe the Russians blew up the pipeline.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serb View PostThe one who used Chemical and Bilogical weapons against Vietnam.
The USSR was also accused of using biological weapons. Supposedly, the Soviet Union supplied biological weapons, mainly fungal toxins (Mycotoxins) to government forces, to kill dissident tribal people and enemy soldiers in Laos, Cambodia, and Afghanistan. It was claimed that the US had obtained good evidence that in addition to a traditional lethal chemical agent, three potent Mycotoxins had been used. The evidence came from the analysis of leaf and stem samples from Cambodia which revealed the use of high levels of mycotoxins. The levels detected were up to twenty times greater than any natural outbreak. Between 1979 and 1981 there were a lot more reports of incidents in which fungal toxins were being used against Laotians and Cambodian villagers.
Two major publications on mycotoxin weapons were issued by the US State Department in 1982. The first report referred to 261 separate attacks in Laos in which 6,504 deaths are alleged to have occurred and 124 attacks in Cambodia causing the death of some 981 persons. The second report issued by the US State Department alleged the use of mycotoxins and provided the results of analyses on blood and urine samples obtained from the victims. By analysis of two contaminated Soviet gas masks acquired from Afghanistan the evidence of mycotoxins use was confirmed. Casualties caused by mycotoxins use are not known in Afghanistan.
As for chemical weapons, according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), this can be any chemical compound intended as a weapon or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Even by that broad definition agent orange was not a chemical weapon. It was a noxiously dangerous insidious substance, but its harm was incidental to its use not by any stretch the motive or primary effect of its use. The US military routinely exposed its own personal as much Agent orange as they did "the enemy". Not generally how weapons are used eh?
Question for you Serb. Would the truth or falseness of any of these bioweapon or chemical weapon accusations (none of which are confirmed) have any relevance to the defensibility of a massive special operation against Ukraine?
Last edited by Geronimo; February 12, 2023, 16:35.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Serb View PostAbsolute majority.
It prevented an Ukranian fullscale invasion of Donbass and complete genocide of Russians there.
Look at modern Grozny 25 years after the war.
We never cared if they like us or not, as long they don't sream "knife the Moskals, hang the Moskals" as they did at Maidan in 2014 and still doing.
Some things are simply not acceptable.
See above.
You have doubtless been shown tons of video footage of Ukrainians expressing hate and resentment towards Russia. The Holodomor is living memory. Russia has never stopped trying to strongarm Ukraine. It would use carrot and stick but there was always a stick. That's precisely the kind of environment in which those kinds of over-the-top expressions of hate proliferate. This expression of resentment is a Hell of a long way from endorsing genocide of an ethnicity in their own country and even further from possessing the power to pursue such a goal. Again, how in the hell would a Russian-as-first-language speaker ever get elected to power in a state where it was possible to implement genocide of Russian speakers as state policy?
Also, you like how Russia handled Chechnya. You look at the shiny new buildings and say "Isn't this great?! Look at what Russia has done for Chechnya!". Upwards of 250,000 civilians died in Chechnya.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2005/...-killed-300000
The entire Republic has a population of barely 1.5 million people Serb!
You are endorsing a formula of action in Ukraine which would predict 6 to 7 million civilian deaths as a laudable response to a claimed total of 14,000 Ukrainian ethnic Russians.
How is that not sick and depraved?
Comment
-
Shhhh - don't pester him with facts. If the cognitive dissonance breaks, it might kill him.
-
A "fact"eh? How do you know your "facts" from bull**** generally? Isn't usually safe to assume the "facts" that make no sense merit the most second guessing? Did Russian state televsion show hours of breathless coverage of shells striking the Donbass? HTF does any amount of such footage prove the Ukrainians decided the best time to pointlessly target civilians in the Donbas would be when Russia had amassed the largest invasion force over their borders since ww2? Whatever bull**** you saw on TV was bull**** designed to make you complacent about the invasion that was about to occur. It had nothing to do with anything Ukraine would do. How can you explain the timing otherwise?
-
-
Originally posted by Serb View Post
Serb is a typical Russian, so - nope, MWHC!
How is your bunker doing? Is booze room still full?
Comment
-
Russia is busy pulling up ancient obsolete aT-62s (800 of them) because they just can't get the parts to manufacture enough modern tanks. They are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point. Don't gete wrong, Russia could still win a long war of attrition if the west loses interest but we're talking about well over a million dead Russians for a phyric victory.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dinner View PostDon't gete wrong, Russia could still win a long war of attrition if the west loses interest but we're talking about well over a million dead Russians for a phyric victory.
On the ground they don't seem to learn much from previous mistakes tho. Recently they reported a gain of 2km in four days as some kind of an improvement. This would be 500m/day on average. In other words with human wave attacks and arty barrages Russia is basically reenacting WW I
Otoh mechanized assaults like that one recently at Vuledar ended in heavy losses, even Pro-Russian commentators are saying this.
Blah
Comment
Comment