Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24
- Thread starter kebabking
- Start date
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I just don't have the energy for it. They make it so hard to have a real discussion.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Post 33,864.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you're big on demanding proof but rather more reluctant to provide it.
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
To be fair, as much as it galls me to do so, the wow reaction that two posters deployed expresses astonishment to the point of disbelief.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
How the fuck is a wow emoji supporting the allegation?
Did you stop for a moment to think the emoji means I was shocked to read that?
I haven't seen anywhere that you support nuclear arms against anyone - hence the emoji I used.
FFS.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
when someone's reduced to adducing support from an emoji they clearly don't have any real evidence for their claim
TopCat
Putin fanboy
You missed an opportunity to give full throat to the pro US/Ukraine/Azov narrative. For shame.
Last edited:
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I'm going to go out on a limb, with no sources or claims for or against, and say that it will make bugger all difference in the long run.
If Ukraine had the ability to strike Russia back when they got the weapons, that may have made a difference. But Russia now knows the range and effectiveness of all such weapons and has mostly moved to neutralise the threat to any significant weaknesses. Never mind that they've had to do so because Ukrainian homemade weapons are now capable of hitting Russia anyhow.
The end difference it will make is that Putin will stamp his feet about a bit more, realise he's powerless to do anything about it short of starting global thermonuclear war, complain a bit more and that's the end of it. Russia may give slightly better export weapons to insurgents elsewhere to make up for it.
Let's analyse what Putin has said:
"Russia’s president has previously warned the U.S. and other NATO allies that allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied longer-range weapons to hit Russian territory would mean that Russia and NATO are at war.", is a ridiculous statement because the underlying principle would be that supplying a weapon to a party in a war makes you a co-belligerent to the war. If that had been the case the USSR and the PRC supplying weapons to North Vietnam, which North Vietnam would then use to strike South Vietnam would draw the USSR and the PRC into a state of war against South Vietnam, which at that time was allied to the US, hence producing a final state of the USSR and the PRC being at war with the US.
There is zero historical precedent in industrialized warfare of countries doing that sort of thing, and countless precedents of countries taking exactly the opposite position. Especially the US, the USSR and the PRC always were (for very obvious reasons) very opposed to this interpretation.
Likewise, the "changes" to the Russian nuclear doctrine don't really change anything. According to the Russian nuclear doctrine the Russian federation might decide to resort to nuclear weapons in four scenarios, which haven't fundamentally changed in decades:
- As a response to a nuclear strike on Russia or other CSTO members
- As a response to the use of non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction against Russia
- As a response to a conventional attack on Russia that threatens the survival of the state itself
- As a response to an attack on Russian nuclear capability, intended to render Russia incapable of a nuclear response to one of the previous three scenarios.
ETA: I didn't intend to go on about something so stupid for so long, but I'm hoping to drag the thread back on track, kicking and screaming.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
My interpretation was that you where shocked by but accepted and belived the post, and this made the claim look more credible to anyone else reading the thread.
If that wasn't your intention fine. We can call it a misunderstanding. But I do think you make the claim look more credible with your reaction.
it might seem small but I have never said anything even remotely like that and as with picking up on spelling mistakes it was being used to try and undermine me without actually addressing any of the points I made. I don't know if TopCat made a genuine mistake or if he thought he could slip an outright lie in and get away with it. But I wasn't in the mood for letting it slide today.
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
I believe another poster has previously accused anyone who liked a post containing information about a Ukrainian setback of supporting Russia (insert their standard c+p about war crimes, Putin going to jail, illegal war)
When it’s pretty clear to anyone who use the boards that liking a post is shorthand for “thank you for sharing this information”. This poster would know that, you’d think.
When it’s pretty clear to anyone who use the boards that liking a post is shorthand for “thank you for sharing this information”. This poster would know that, you’d think.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Makes a change from you taking every opportunity to deep throat Vlad, I suppose.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Don't know anything about spelling mistakes.
Anyway, not going to repeat myself. Have explained it, and it's entirely down to you whether you accept it or not.
A genuine word of advice - I'd be well wary of the likes you got during the misunderstanding. There's certainly one shit stirring troll at work here, who delights in such moments. (Since we're focusing on non verbal reactions....)
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
"Thank you for sharing the information that emanymton called for the use if nuclear weapons against Russia. "
Yeah can't see why that reaction would bother me.
Seriously if I said "Elpenor said Russia should just nuke Kyiv" and others came along and liked that post, it wouldn't bother you?
Yes at this point it is very much a molehill mountain situation. But it's this or work.
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
They should never have been taken away in the first place.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
I understand: but had a quick glance as this conflict is really hotting up now so was hoping for some insights: but merely saw mostly insults….
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
At least not without some sort of international guarantee that... Oh.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
They used a wow emoji
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
In fairness, would rather insults than weapons.
But, yes. The conflict threatens to escalate. Everybody is surely on edge.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you're quite happy to slip outright lies into your posts.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Time to ban nukes and emojis, surely
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
It mistakenly looks like I liked a post about international guarantees on something: in fact as ongoing Gaza genocide facilitated by war criminals Starmer/Biden/Harris and no doubt very soon Trump illustrates, such guarantees (like anti-genocide statutes) are utterly worthless
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That’s not a wow emoji. It’s his face every time you give him a good old brown nose.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
soz should have replied to this paragraph earlier.
no it wouldn't. anyone? ffs that's poor. do you think that eg the soviet union or china were anti-war for wanting the us to lose in vietnam? do you think the united states anti-war movement wanted the united states to lose in vietnam?
people in britain and the united states demanding united states / uk withdrawal from eg iraq, eg afghanistan were demanding the correction of an error, not necessarily demanding the defeat of the country. and that was being done in the context of far more democratic countries than russia is under putin. were you out on 15/2/03 demanding the defeat of the coalition of the willing? or were you out saying this is all a vast clusterfuck about to happen?
Last edited:
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
The weird and vaguely homophobic comments above deep throating and brown nosing surely belong in 6th form classrooms or perhaps 4chan?
There's nobody here who supports Putin. Fairly sure about that.
There's nobody here who supports Putin. Fairly sure about that.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
He's definitely right on this.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
This is that dishonesty I mentioned.
That is clearly my interpretation of your argument based on your posts overall and the post I was replying to in particular. Not a specific claim you said a specific thing at some vague point in the past. These are completely different things and you know it.
You will notice also that I used the same formation you did when you said I wasn't anti-war I was pro-war as long as Russia loses. I was echoing your point back at you. You will also notice I didn't demand you back up that claim as you were clearly not making a specific claim any more than I was in my reply. You were making an argument of what you felt my position meant.
There are plenty of other examples of people misrepresentation or misinterpreting things I say and I don't ask for evidance as that's a normal part of human communication.
Elpenor did this a little while ago and all said was I don't think it's an accurate characterisation of what I said. I'm not bothered by this, that is their interpretation of things I said and they are entitled to it.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
right. so you're basing this on an impression you've gained from 3,000 or so posts i've made here. not a single one of which has expressed support for either the russian invasion or for vladimir putin. you seem to have been reading different posts from me - not once have i called for ukraine's defeat, or posted the anti-imperialism of fools thing. i'll ask you one more time to put up or shut up. put up not some vague impression or addled interpretation but something i have actually said which actually substantiates the claims you made, or stfu. i suggest you take the latter option.
Last edited:
Similar threads
