Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
Grim as fuck
It’s the Russian way. See also Aleppo & Grozny.
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24
- Thread starter kebabking
- Start date
It’s the Russian way. See also Aleppo & Grozny.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I don't think it was the Russians in Fallujah.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
We're probably getting into semantics here, but it is pretty much Russian doctrine to meet opposition by razing the place to the ground, rather than fight street-to-street. Mariupol, Severodonesk, Kharkiv, Soledar, Mari'inka, etc., etc., and that's just in Ukraine.
Fallujah wasn't exactly typical of the way the US goes about its military business. The destruction of Fallujah was a product of the amount of firepower used to combat the enemy - collateral damage. The Russians aren't targeting positions - they're flattening cities.
And I think intent does matter.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Seriously. I mean the all those people in Laos and Cambodia just died of unknown causes. Those drones that killed wedding parties were secret Putin black ops.
FFS it's appalling what has happened in Ukraine but 'the Russian way' (cruel people those slavs!) is crap
FFS it's appalling what has happened in Ukraine but 'the Russian way' (cruel people those slavs!) is crap
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
Pretty clear the post was talking about razing entire cities to the ground through months long campaigns of artillery bombardment, rather than targeted attacks on wedding parties, as awful as those things are.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Because of cause this practice is linked to the Russian culture in some way rather than being a typical outcome of strong state power in war. Come on the Russians are not the first to murder civilians in a systematic manner and neither will they be the last.
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, Nicaragua, Fallujah, Dresden, Japan ...
Yossarian
⏭️
Yeah, I think there'd probably be some references to the American way of war if Russia started Agent Orange-ing some Ukrainian forests
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
Do we really need to provide clarification that we're referring to the military doctrine of each specific country's armed forces every time we refer to the crimes committed by an aggressor in a conflict?
There was clearly no implication that Russian culture and people that were being referred to.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Yes there was - "it's the Russian way" not "it's the way of the Russian state".
It might have been, probably was, inadvertent. But maybe on what is supposed to be a left bulletin board a little care should be taken not to equate people with their states.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
I think it was pretty clear exactly what was being referred to, to all but the most dimwitted people.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
There is no way on earth that was inadvertent, it was blatantly deliberate.
Shock and awe?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Even that was on a pretty accurate target plan, not just indiscriminate bombing flat of entire neighbourhoods.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Link doesn't work for me
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Just checked it on mine and its opened.
Try the long URL http://archive.today/2023.05.18-230...r-weapons-russia-oligarchs-churchill-8540ef60
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Don't know why.
The U.S. and U.K. Are Split on the Ukraine War
The British are more assertive, the Americans more worried about provoking Russia.
By
Tom Rogan
May 18, 2023 6:45 pm ET
Ukrainian soldiers fire a cannon near Bakhmut, Ukraine, May 15.
PHOTO: LIBKOS/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The U.K. and the U.S. are great allies, but on Ukraine there’s a disagreement brewing. The Brits would like the Americans to be more aggressive, and the U.S. wants the U.K. to be more cautious.
The disagreement revolves mainly around weaponry. The U.K. last week announced it will send Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine, and it has provided thousands of man-portable antitank systems to Kyiv. The U.K. has also provided boutique electronic warfare and intelligence support to Ukraine. Yet although British support pales in comparison with the weapons and financial aid provided by the U.S., the U.K has shown a sustained willingness to send its best weapons to Ukraine.
It isn’t only weapons; it’s people too. U.K. special forces from the British Army’s SAS and SRR regiments and the Navy’s SBS units are operating very close to the front lines. These personnel are serving as key interlocutors between North Atlantic Treaty Organization intelligence efforts and Ukrainian forces. They aren’t fighting, but their guiding influence on Ukrainian special-forces activity is evident in the sabotage operations Ukraine has conducted against Russian railway, airfield, fuel and other logistical nodes. The British army is also regarded by the Ukrainian military command as its most reliable advisory partner.
This support would once have seemed inconceivable. British policy toward Russia from 2006 through 2022 was defined by overt appeasement. Britain’s domestic intelligence service, MI5, was overwhelmingly focused on Islamist terrorist threats during this period. As vast amounts of questionable Russian money flowed into London, successive U.K. governments simply turned a blind eye to Russian foreign policy—including the murder of dissident Alexander Litvinenko on British soil in 2006.
The March 2018 poisonings in the English city of Salisbury changed Britain’s threat assessment. Russian GRU military intelligence operatives used Novichok, a highly concentrated Soviet-era nerve agent, to poison Sergei Skripal, a former GRU officer who had defected to the U.K., and his daughter. While the Skripals survived, an unrelated British woman died several months later after she handled the discarded nerve-agent delivery mechanism, which was disguised as a perfume bottle. A police officer was also seriously wounded after visiting Mr. Skripal’s residence. The brutal recklessness of these attacks provoked global diplomatic expulsions of Russian intelligence officers and the shared anger of the U.K. political establishment and population.
Still, London’s relations with Moscow warmed until it became clear late in 2021 that Vladimir Putin intended a major invasion of Ukraine. The high confidence of the U.S. and British governments that such an invasion was approaching was heavily supported by British intercepts of Russian military and political communications. But for Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the Russian attack provoked a deeper personal reaction.
Long a Russophile, Mr. Johnson had cultivated Conservative Party connections with Russian oligarchs in London. He even made Evgeny Lebedev, son of a Putin-associated oligarch, a life member of the House of Lords. But the attack on Ukraine changed something for Mr. Johnson, a devoted admirer of Winston Churchill. The theme of Mr. Johnson’s 2014 biography of the legendary wartime prime minister was the intersection of Churchill’s innate greatness and the moment of greatest consequence. In Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the commencement of the largest war in Europe since 1945, Mr. Johnson sensed his own Churchillian moment. Crucially, he also sensed an opportunity to prove that his post-Brexit Britain would remain a global power.
Quickly deploying special forces to Ukraine alongside a large number of varied weapons and other intelligence capabilities, Mr. Johnson went all-in. Ukraine’s gratitude was evident in the personal connection Mr. Johnson established with President Volodymyr Zelensky. The ensuing success of these efforts for Ukraine’s defense, and the prestige they have lent to U.K. foreign policy, allowed Mr. Johnson’s two successors to continue his efforts. While Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is seen as risk-averse on China by many in London and Washington, he has doubled down on support for Ukraine.
Always behind the scenes, Britain, Poland and the Baltic states have lamented what they regard as the Biden administration’s lethargy in supplying Kyiv with the advanced weapons it requests. American caution is evident in other areas. When a Russian jet fighter fired on a British spy plane over the Black Sea in September 2022, the U.K. responded by deploying its own jet fighters to escort future spy flights. In contrast, when Russian jet fighters downed a U.S. drone over the Black Sea this March, the Biden administration ordered future drone flights to steer clear of the battlefield.
Coordination on Ukraine between Washington and London remains unparalleled in the West. But for London, the risk of provoking the Kremlin is viewed as less important than the reward of enabling Ukraine’s victory. And that is as much about Churchill, Brexit and Novichok as it is about Ukraine.
Mr. Rogan is a national-security writer for the Washington Examiner.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
That works ta
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
"We" took out infrastructure too, though didn't we? Water and electricity stations.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
That article is dreadful, just for this bit alone:
Johnson didn't even reverse his own defence cuts, never mind expand UK defence industrial capacity or expand our defence forces to prepare for what might be coming down the road. He took no steps to prepare the country for the economic and social crises that the invasion might have triggered either.
All he did was his usual trick of making a gesture, demand all the other boys do the actual work and then claim it was his idea if it works.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Yeah, we did - we're not purer than the driven snow. But this is about something else.
Cid
Proper break this time
WSJ dumpster fire. Libertarians trying to cement their ilk's place in history. Churchillian Boris just as he'd like it.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
You won't find me defending Johnson, however, he did get a street named after him in Ukraine for his efforts.
Out of interest which countries expanded their defence industrial capacity or their defence forces or prepare their country for the economic and social crisis that the invasion triggered ( or might have triggered) ? The OECD , for example , described the “shock” of the war as being one of the main factors that had slowed economic growth in 2022 to just 3.1 percent, and why the OECD projected it to slow to 2.2 percent in 2023.
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
Just for clarification, I meant the way the current Russian state pursues war by pulverising cities, which I hoped was clear from the example cities given but maybe wasn’t.
I am happy to acknowledge that other shitty imperialist war cuntery such as ‘shock and awe’ and ‘rendition’ also exist, but that’s not really the topic of this thread.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Sky News is reporting the US has agreed to the supply of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.
news.sky.com
Zelenskyy meets Sunak at G7 in Japan as US approves sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly called on the US to allow the supply of fighter jets, but Joe Biden had until now refused the requests.
news.sky.com
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Yes you do in here, any ambiguity is in danger of being quickly interpreted mainly based on your standing amongst the forum cunt-callers
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Similar threads
