Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Orang Utan]

If you use terms that reference his weight and physical fitness, things common to many people, it isnt specifically about him.
i cant believe i need to even say this.

Seconded. Wind your neck in and let’s move on.

 

[NoXion]

The terms we use to insult people do have a wider impact than just against the person you're insulting. It's one of the reasons gendered and racist insults are frowned upon mostly nowadays. You know this though, surely?

When a man with so many advantages granted by society still manages to be an utter turd, then that's punching up as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Crispy]

Residential areas in Kharkiv hit by MLRS fire, during the "negotiations"



Aftermath videos/pics are out there and a glimpse was enough to know I didn't want to see more, or post them here. Dozens dead.

 

[YouSir]

I think that's highly possible.

There are reports/footage of cluster bombs being used on civilian areas already. How reliable they are who knows, I've given up trying to guess.

 

[a_chap]

Whereas I hope this turns out to be false


Use of thermobaric bomb reported:

 

[Orang Utan]

When a man with so many advantages granted by society still manages to be an utter turd, then that's punching up as far as I'm concerned.

Consider yourself taught them and refrain from this kind of shit from now on

 

[YouSir]

Whereas I hope this turns out to be false


Use of thermobaric bomb reported:

Was listening to someone talk about these the other day, horrific as they are the point was made that anything that kills you is pretty horrific. Especially if you're willing to use them on civilian targets. Best not to get caught up in the 'here's the extra special super weapon that kills you twice' narrative, which is mostly the reserve of tactical wankers on Twitter.

 

[Spymaster]

I think the benefits of elbows' posts is often the showing the workings style, which in a rolling news shitstorm is a methodical approach to parsing what information is out there

Yes agreed. Tbh, I only skim read his posts because I find his style irksomely pompous and bloviating. They definitely have value but other posters have more, imo.

 

[elbows]

Liz Truss is apparently to blame for Russia's nuke stance.

OK thats a pretty good fit for the explanation of Russias nuclear threat that I offered, that this was all about restating what the ultimate red lines are when it comes to mutually assured destruction.

Meanwhile I've stumbled upon this hilariously shit BBC article about whether Putin would press the nuclear button. Unlike the rest of the BBC coverage yesterday which downplayed the nuclear fears and attempted to put the rhetoric into some kind of appropriate context, this one takes a very silly, fear-whipping approach. One that invites us to speculate about whether Putin would do such a thing, one that airs claims various biased experts can come out with in this situation, and a load of naive shit. One that builds on top of a load of previous dodgy analysis which invited people to believe Putin would never do x, y or z even when those things were always realistic possibilities, so that we could then be encouraged to think the unthinkable next time we ponder what Putin might actually be prepared to do.

It is a perfect example of what happens when an article describes some of the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction, but when doing so only focusses on one of the nuclear powers involved in that ugly balance of power, making a complete mockery of the whole thing. People should not quiver in fear when they read such articles, they should laugh at how partial it is. The antidote to the article is to read it while keeping at the forefront of our minds things like the one I mentioned earlier about the political shitstorm that happened when the likes of Corbyn raised the prospect that they wouldnt actually be prepared to use the bomb. MAD requires all the key nuclear powers to come out with rhetoric that clearly states they will be prepared to use nuclear weapons if the ultimate red lines are crossed. What Russia came out with yesterday about this is entirely consistent with how the MAD balance has been for many decades, it is nothing new.

Ukraine invasion: Would Putin press the nuclear button?

"Would never do" isn't a phrase that applies to Vladimir Putin, the BBC's Steve Rosenberg believes.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Pickman's model]

Consider yourself taught them and refrain from this kind of shit from now on

fat chance

 

[Pickman's model]

OK thats a pretty good fit for the explanation of Russias nuclear threat that I offered, that this was all about restating what the ultimate red lines are when it comes to mutually assured destruction.

Meanwhile I've stumbled upon this hilariously shit BBC article about whether Putin would press the nuclear button. Unlike the rest of the BBC coverage yesterday which downplayed the nuclear fears and attempted to put the rhetoric into some kind of appropriate context, this one takes a very silly, fear-whipping approach. One that invites us to speculate about whether Putin would do such a thing, one that airs claims various biased experts can come out with in this situation, and a load of naive shit. One that builds on top of a load of previous dodgy analysis which invited people to believe Putin would never do x, y or z even when those things were always realistic possibilities.

It is a perfect example of what happens when an article describes some of the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction, but when doing so only focusses on one of the nuclear powers involved in that ugly balance of power, making a complete mockery of the whole thing. People should not quiver in fear when they read such articles, they should laugh at how partial it is. The antidote to the article is to read it while keeping at the forefront of our minds things like the one I mentioned earlier about the political shitstorm that happened when the likes of Corbyn raised the prospect that they wouldnt actually be prepared to use the bomb. MAD requires all the key nuclear powers to come out with rhetoric that clearly states they will be prepared to use nuclear weapons if the ultimate red lines are crossed.

Ukraine invasion: Would Putin press the nuclear button?

"Would never do" isn't a phrase that applies to Vladimir Putin, the BBC's Steve Rosenberg believes.

www.bbc.co.uk

the thing is that there isn't a red button as such, as there are a range of nuclear weapons with the icbms in the heavyweight corner but those are the least likely to be used. there are also intermediate range weapons. and battlefield weapons. would people go full mad if something the size of hiroshima was used in ukraine? i don't think so, particularly if it was an airburst and used against an army in the field rather than in the course of urban operations.

 

[bimble]

I just don't understand it. If winning the war requires war-crimes type weapons being fired at Ukrainian cities how does it possibly work out for Russia in the end?
I mean if you were him would you be thinking that everyone will just get over the unpleasantness in a little while the sanctions be lifted and he'll again be invited to the international dinner parties or what. Maybe thats exactly what will happen idk.

 

[nogojones]

Whereas I hope this turns out to be false


Use of thermobaric bomb reported:

Don't forget the British and Americans also used these weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq

 

[elbows]

Yes agreed. Tbh, I only skim read his posts because I find his style irksomely pompous and bloviating. They definitely have value but other posters have more, imo.

If I could find a way to make the points I make without coming across as pompous then I would be most interested in doing so. I would love to receive useful tips about how I could make posts that include as much detail and explanation as I like to make without coming across as pompous. And I certainly wish I could achieve the same results with far less words.

I say I a lot in my posts because I want to make it very clear that I am just sharing my own opinions, that I am speaking for myself as an individual rather than using words which suggest that what I'm saying is the absolute truth of the matter rather than just my own personal interpretation of events. I am explaining how I think about these things, and why I have reached the conclusions I have.

 

[Spymaster]

If I could find a way to make the points I make without coming across as pompous then I would be most interested in doing so. I would love to receive useful tips about how I could make posts that include as much detail and explanation as I like to make without coming across as pompous. And I certainly wish I could achieve the same results with far less words.

No worries.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If I could find a way to make the points I make without coming across as pompous then I would be most interested in doing so. I would love to receive useful tips about how I could make posts that include as much detail and explanation as I like to make without coming across as pompous. And I certainly wish I could achieve the same results with far less words.

I say I a lot in my posts because I want to make it very clear that I am just sharing my own opinions, that I am speaking for myself as an individual rather than using words which suggest that what I'm saying is the absolute truth of the matter rather than just my own personal interpretation of events. I am explaining how I think about these things, and why I have reached the conclusions I have.

Don't worry about it. You can't please everyone all the time on here. And nobody is obliged to read your posts. To the people who don't like your posts, I would simply say 'don't read them, then'.

 

[killer b]

If I could find a way to make the points I make without coming across as pompous then I would be most interested in doing so. I would love to receive useful tips about how I could make posts that include as much detail and explanation as I like to make without coming across as pompous. And I certainly wish I could achieve the same results with far less words.

I say I a lot in my posts because I want to make it very clear that I am just sharing my own opinions, that I am speaking for myself as an individual rather than using words which suggest that what I'm saying is the absolute truth of the matter rather than just my own personal interpretation of events. I am explaining how I think about these things, and why I have reached the conclusions I have.

spymaster and cupid stunt thinking you pompous are probably things to take heart in tbh.

 

[19force8]

No, I dont have to think that. Other possibilities exist, there are other ways to make sense of what was planned and what was happened so far. Wars and invasions are indulged in even when the aggressor knows that it will sustain some losses. Knowing what they are actually prepared to lose is important to know, and assumptions that they expected no losses are not something I like to make. Plus they judge the balance of losses to the potential gains, and there isnt very much discussion about exactly what those perceived gains are in this case, which rather makes a mockery of attempts to understand Russias thinking on this. Its part of a large, shitty geopolitical game, Ukraine is quite a prize in that grand chessboard shit. The west values that prize too, theyve been prepared to put a lot of effort into getting Ukraine into our sphere of influence, and that gives us some clues about why Russia might be prepared to put a lot of effort (and risk losses) into trying to achieve the opposite.

Of course you don't have to think that. Just as I never said they didn't expect casualties. There's a big difference between sustaining losses to win a war and not actually achieving that end. Whatever the calculation was last week I doubt a few thousand dead was considered an impediment. On the other hand, getting bogged down without achieving anything is the prelude to a very Russian nightmare.

 

[The39thStep]

Yes agreed. Tbh, I only skim read his posts because I find his style irksomely pompous and bloviating. They definitely have value but other posters have more, imo.

Very subtly put Spy but I think I preferred the DaveCinzano wording

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course you don't have to think that. Just as I never said they didn't expect casualties. There's a big difference between sustaining losses to win a war and not actually achieving that end. Whatever the calculation was last week I doubt a few thousand dead was considered an impediment. On the other hand, getting bogged down without achieving anything is the prelude to a very Russian nightmare.

it is the very subject of vladimir putin's sleepless nights

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes agreed. Tbh, I only skim read his posts because I find his style irksomely pompous and bloviating. They definitely have value but other posters have more, imo.

i think you'll find we prefer the term 'windbaggy' here

 

[elbows]

the thing is that there isn't a red button as such, as there are a range of nuclear weapons with the icbms in the heavyweight corner but those are the least likely to be used. there are also intermediate range weapons. and battlefield weapons. would people go full mad if something the size of hiroshima was used in ukraine? i don't think so, particularly if it was an airburst and used against an army in the field rather than in the course of urban operations.

Yes we've been invited to consider the possible use of smaller nuclear weapons on the battlefield a number of times this century, and it remains unclear as to whether the prospect of such things are actually realistic. I dont rule it out, although the radiation consequences and propaganda consequences are a big complication. Those aspects dont seem to have been tested so far because no conflict has actually arisen yet where the use of such weaponry was deemed an important ingredient to the war plans.

Some people started going on yesterday about whether Putin would use a nuke on Ukraine, but that sort of nuclear weaponry was not what Russias statement was all about. They were very much talking about the global MAD balance of power and red lines.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Probably been posted but I heard on the beeb this morning that the Ukrainian president, besides having been a stand up comic in years past, also won their version of Strictly and was the Ukrainian voice of Paddington Bear.

Oh and he's also holding off a fairly big army in his downtime.

Found this on Youtube:



Not exactly highbrow stuff.

 

[platinumsage]

.

 

[platinumsage]

Russia Uses Controversial Cluster Bombs In Ukraine, Hits School: Amnesty

Rights groups have called on Russia to stop using cluster munitions in Ukraine, saying fatal strikes using the indiscriminate weapons on a hospital and a school could constitute war crimes.

www.ndtv.com

 

[Spymaster]

spymaster and cupid stunt thinking you pompous are probably things to take heart in tbh.

Aye, but I'd still rather read elbow's posts all day than yours for 5 minutes.

 

[elbows]

i think you'll find we prefer the term 'windbaggy' here

My grandfather was known to jokingly suggest that my mother had been 'vaccinated with a gramophone needle'.

 

[RD2003]

From the Guardian. Hopefully a sign that some sensible voices are coming through from the Ukrainian side.


The mayor of the Ukrainian city of Vasilkiv says residents are “dreaming of peace”, the Guardian’s Shaun Walker reports.

I’ve been speaking to Natalia Balasynovych, the mayor of Vasilkiv, which came under heavy fire as Russian troops tried to disable the air defence system here and capture the airport over recent days.

Asked what she would like to see at the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine currently taking place, Balasynovych said she believed most people in her town would accept a compromise to stop the war.

We would like to see compromise but not a capitulation. Maybe neutral status for Ukraine, if it will stop them shooting now. Because to live like this is not possible.
If they will offer us only the condition of capitulation then we have to fight to the end. But I would like our children never to wake up with these bombs. Our children will have serious trauma, and people are dreaming of peace already.
People used to think about a new car or iPhone, but nobody was thinking about peace. But now, they are really dreaming of peace.
When old people used to wish each other peace, we didnt understand the sense of this word. Now we really understand.

 

[Pickman's model]

Aye, but I'd still rather read elbow's posts all day than yours for 5 minutes.

likewise

 

[Artaxerxes]

From the Guardian. Hopefully a sign that some sensible voices are coming through from the Ukrainian side.


The mayor of the Ukrainian city of Vasilkiv says residents are “dreaming of peace”, the Guardian’s Shaun Walker reports.

I’ve been speaking to Natalia Balasynovych, the mayor of Vasilkiv, which came under heavy fire as Russian troops tried to disable the air defence system here and capture the airport over recent days.

Asked what she would like to see at the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine currently taking place, Balasynovych said she believed most people in her town would accept a compromise to stop the war.

Yeah, damn those war hawks in Ukraine for making Russia invade.