Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 940 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,967
35,582
136
It's the same thing with Israel needing Russia's permission to strike Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria. It's realpolitik.


Is it? Israel has done widespread attacks on Iranian and Syrian targets in Syria with zero Russian notification or approval, much to Moscow's fury. IIRC one sortie in particular saw the Israeli assets shadow a Russian SIGINT flight on the way out, which then caught a SAM meant for one of them. Crew lost. Sounds like a situation made up of more than effective diplomacy to me.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,378
7,443
136
A man unwilling to see the difference between murder and self-defense anyway. How his tune would change were it Brazilian civilians getting blown to pieces or tortured/raped before being executed.

I'm glad that fascist fuck Balsonaro is gone, but Lula is off to a bad start here. What a shame he isn't interested in helping end the war and suffering sooner as opposed to later.

I view it slightly different.
How integrated into the "community of nations" is much of South America anyway? Particularly Europe and NATO, right? Probably not much connection there.
Besides, don't they have their own troubles to deal with? Brazil itself seems on a knife's edge after their election. That military ammo and equipment may be needed a lot closer to home, and maybe Lula knows that.

I don't know if they are in a good enough place to share.
I hope one day they can be... but the pessimist in me looks around and wonders if Ukraine is not the calm before the storm.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Is it? Israel has done widespread attacks on Iranian and Syrian targets in Syria with zero Russian notification or approval, much to Moscow's fury. IIRC one sortie in particular saw the Israeli assets shadow a Russian SIGINT flight on the way out, which then caught a SAM meant for one of them. Crew lost. Sounds like a situation made up of more than effective diplomacy to me.


No, they're not seeking approval. Because the approval is tacit. They're just letting them do it for now.

The primary reason for this is security. The Russians have a major presence in Syria and its airspace. For Israel to be able to go after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or its proxies on Syrian territory, Israeli pilots need to deconflict with the Russians. Putin has been mostly happy to oblige the Israelis, because although he and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei agree on ensuring the survival of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the Russians have wanted the Iranians to be the junior partner in that effort. Israel’s periodic and withering strikes on the IRGC with the Kremlin’s quiet assent have reinforced Putin’s approach.
 
Last edited:

Young Grasshopper

Senior member
Nov 9, 2007
866
270
136
What a shame he isn't interested in helping end the war and suffering sooner as opposed to later.

Lula is absolutely trying to help end the war, by advocating for a PEACE AGREEMENT, you know to actually END the war? He is not trying to EXTEND the war like you and the rest of the AT community want to do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
Lula is absolutely trying to help end the war, by advocating for a PEACE AGREEMENT, you know to actually END the war? He is not trying to EXTEND the war like you and the rest of the AT community want to do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does that peace agreement look like to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,442
136
I'm not a Musk fanboy by any yardstick, but I have had enormous respect for Musk's accomplishment with Tesla. Birthing a successful effing car company is akin, in some respects, to founding your own nation. It is and was no small feat. So . . . it took many incidents for me to finally conclude that this guy is, in many respects, an idiot manboy of the first degree. #Sad
Well he didn't actually birth Tesla
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,450
9,835
136
Lula is absolutely trying to help end the war, by advocating for a PEACE AGREEMENT, you know to actually END the war? He is not trying to EXTEND the war like you and the rest of the AT community want to do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean like the peace agreement the French got with the Germans in WWII? I personally think the one the British got with them was much better, though it involved much more fighting.
 

Young Grasshopper

Senior member
Nov 9, 2007
866
270
136
To add to what others have said: a lasting peace is only possible if both sides actually intend to honor that peace.

Russia doesn't. It invaded last year because it got away with illegally annexing Crimea in 2014, and Putin believes in an empire where certain regions "belong" to Russia whether or not the residents agree. Russia only wants peace when it can keep annexed regions, and then only to bide time until it's ready to invade further. The goal of the 2022 invasion was the annexation of all Ukraine — giving Russia the territories it claims just gives it a staging area for the next incursion.

And on your newest claims about the claims of a blocked ceasefire...

First, you need to learn how to read critically. Both cited sources are openly partisan conservative outlets. While they're not tabloid, they still frame things through a biased lens and are going to look for claims that support their preexisting views. Neither the Bennett interview nor the Foreign Affairs piece linked by Responsible Statecraft are proof NATO is hoping for a perpetual war to grind down Russia, let alone to move on to China.

Among other concerns, I don't think Zelenskyy would be calling for more military aid and intervention if all he wanted was a brokered peace that conceded some stolen territory to Russia. He'd be complaining about foreign interference and conspicuously staying out of the regions Russia wanted in that ceasefire.

We all know this war isn't just about Ukraine. But this isn't about building a Western empire; NATO isn't planning to conquer Ukraine or Russia. It's about halting a Putin-era Russia that threatens NATO member states, and that means sending a message that military aggression won't be tolerated. If Russia hadn't invaded Crimea or the "separatist" regions, we wouldn't be in this boat.

I still don't get what game you're trying to play here. Russia under Putin is an expansionist dictatorship that has political opponents imprisoned and assassinated; why the hell would you be in any way sympathetic with it while trying to portray NATO as a dastardly villain? We know NATO isn't all sunshine and lollipops, but nor is it a horrible beast that must be contained.

1-It invaded last year because NATO by their own words admitted that a peace agreement they signed was a sham and never had any intention of peace, instead spent 8 years arming Ukraine with the intention of using Ukrainian bodies to fight wars for them. Not to mention Russia gave NATO one final notice in Dec 2021 addressing their security concerns and NATO basically told them to fuck off. Moral of the story; this could have all been avoided with some good ol fashion diplomacy and actually implementing peace agreements instead of trying to deceive the other end of that agreement.

2-What difference does it make if the article is from a partisan conservative outlet? It’s a report on an interview, not an op-ed. So the solution of to look for the same story on a partisan left leaning outlet? Tried that. Guess what I found? Tons of references to the threat of killing Zelensky and no mention at all of Bennet stating the West killed a peace agreement. I wonder why?


Want proof?



Anything that makes the West look bad in this conflict gets censored by the left. I guess thats why many here are so clueless on the history on this conflict. It didn’t just start last year.

3-Zelensky is calling for more military aid because his handlers at the White House are telling him to do so. You actually think Zelensky is in charge? His entire country is dependent on US tax payer handouts at the moment. He will do and say what he is told. The two stories I mentioned are enough evidence to show Ukraine tried not once, but twice negotiating a deal with the Russians. I’m sure he would love to be able to get peace deal going, and go back to living a normal life with his wife and family instead of being on house arrest for another year which is what the majority of this forum want him to go thru.

4-NATO in the last 20 years has caused more death and destruction than Russia ever has. Russia is not innocent either but let’s not pretend like NATO isn’t the bigger warmonger of the two. Russia has invaded Ukraine, Georgia, what else in the last 20 years? NATO on the other hand:

-Bombed the fuck out of Iraq
-Bombed the fuck out of Afghanistan
-Bombed the fuck out of Libya
-Currently illegally occupying Syria
-Supporting a genocide in Yemen
-Multiple coup attempts around the world etc…


We’re the terrorists. We go around trying to fuck over leaders and countries we don’t like. That’s the point of NATO. Maybe one day you guys will wake up and see that we’re not the good guys. Our country would be better off if we spent our tax money on our own people instead of funding entire countries during a war and writing a blank check to the Pentagon every year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
1-It invaded last year because NATO by their own words admitted that a peace agreement they signed was a sham and never had any intention of peace, instead spent 8 years arming Ukraine with the intention of using Ukrainian bodies to fight wars for them. Not to mention Russia gave NATO one final notice in Dec 2021 addressing their security concerns and NATO basically told them to fuck off. Moral of the story; this could have all been avoided with some good ol fashion diplomacy and actually implementing peace agreements instead of trying to deceive the other end of that agreement.

2-What difference does it make if the article is from a partisan conservative outlet? It’s a report on an interview, not an op-ed. So the solution of to look for the same story on a partisan left leaning outlet? Tried that. Guess what I found? Tons of references to the threat of killing Zelensky and no mention at all of Bennet stating the West killed a peace agreement. I wonder why?


Want proof?



Anything that makes the West look bad in this conflict gets censored by the left. I guess thats why many here are so clueless on the history on this conflict. It didn’t just start last year.

3-Zelensky is calling for more military aid because his handlers at the White House are telling him to do so. You actually think Zelensky is in charge? His entire country is dependent on US tax payer handouts at the moment. He will do and say what he is told. The two stories I mentioned are enough evidence to show Ukraine tried not once, but twice negotiating a deal with the Russians. I’m sure he would love to be able to get peace deal going, and go back to living a normal life with his wife and family instead of being on house arrest for another year which is what the majority of this forum want him to go thru.

4-NATO in the last 20 years has caused more death and destruction than Russia ever has. Russia is not innocent either but let’s not pretend like NATO isn’t the bigger warmonger of the two. Russia has invaded Ukraine, Georgia, what else in the last 20 years? NATO on the other hand:

-Bombed the fuck out of Iraq
-Bombed the fuck out of Afghanistan
-Bombed the fuck out of Libya
-Currently illegally occupying Syria
-Supporting a genocide in Yemen
-Multiple coup attempts around the world etc…


We’re the terrorists. We go around trying to fuck over leaders and countries we don’t like. That’s the point of NATO. Maybe one day you guys will wake up and see that we’re not the good guys. Our country would be better off if we spent our tax money on our own people instead of funding entire countries during a war and writing a blank check to the Pentagon every year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The only people who invaded Ukraine are Russians.

Why do you blame America for America invading Iraq and then blame America for Russia invading Ukraine?

Does Russia have no agency?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,967
35,582
136
Lula is absolutely trying to help end the war, by advocating for a PEACE AGREEMENT, you know to actually END the war? He is not trying to EXTEND the war like you and the rest of the AT community want to do.


So your answer is that like you, Lula shares the delusion that Russia honors agreements with Ukraine? I think he's looking out for Brazil, trying not to rock an unsteady boat.

Do you want to take another crack at it, try to speak for yourself maybe? No one is asking you to interpret what Lula is saying, you just need to explain why it is you feel Putin and his regime can be trusted given their track record. Extra points if you can do it without regurgitating more of the standard anti NATO vomit and histrionics.

One more time: a peace agreement means Russia attacks again in a couple years; rinse, lather, repeat. The war ends when Russian invaders leave Ukraine. It stays over if Russia's ability to launch wars of aggression is removed. You want Putin and his regime to survive their epic clusterfuck so they can make more war on their neighbors, so do kindly take your war crime excusing projection and pound it.

All Russia has to do is stop invading it's neighbor, to go home and leave Ukraine. Then there's peace to talk about. Russia was not invaded. It's really beyond time you accept these truths and quit the bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RnR_au and KMFJD

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,450
9,835
136
3-Zelensky is calling for more military aid because his handlers at the White House are telling him to do so. You actually think Zelensky is in charge? His entire country is dependent on US tax payer handouts at the moment. He will do and say what he is told. The two stories I mentioned are enough evidence to show Ukraine tried not once, but twice negotiating a deal with the Russians. I’m sure he would love to be able to get peace deal going, and go back to living a normal life with his wife and family instead of being on house arrest for another year which is what the majority of this forum want him to go thru.

So let me get this straight. Zelensky is asking for military aid to fight Russia because the white house is demanding that he ask for it. And if he refuses to do so, he wouldn't be able to get the aid that he is only asking for because America wants him to? WTF, kind of logic is that. If he didn't want to fight and just surrender he wouldn't need the American aid and wouldn't care about pissing off America. It's so sad that you can't see that your logic doesn't even stand up to least amount of critical thinking.

4-NATO in the last 20 years has caused more death and destruction than Russia ever has. Russia is not innocent either but let’s not pretend like NATO isn’t the bigger warmonger of the two. Russia has invaded Ukraine, Georgia, what else in the last 20 years? NATO on the other hand:

No matter how many times you say this, it still isn't true. Russia/USSR were the biggest mass murders of the 20th century. They started WWII right with Germany when they also invaded Poland.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
1-It invaded last year because NATO by their own words admitted that a peace agreement they signed was a sham and never had any intention of peace, instead spent 8 years arming Ukraine with the intention of using Ukrainian bodies to fight wars for them. Not to mention Russia gave NATO one final notice in Dec 2021 addressing their security concerns and NATO basically told them to fuck off. Moral of the story; this could have all been avoided with some good ol fashion diplomacy and actually implementing peace agreements instead of trying to deceive the other end of that agreement.

Please provide your proof that this was the intention behind supplying weapons to Ukraine.

Because it seems to the rational person that Russia's annexation of Crimea and arming of separatist forces in east Ukraine presented a legitimate security concern for Ukraine. Meaning the weapons we supplied were for defensive reasons.

But hey, if you've got proof, please present it. There is no proof of this statement in your links. And it's kind of crucial here.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,043
41,727
136

even prisoners have their limits

 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,009
8,640
136

even prisoners have their limits

Thanks for the links. At that site, I also found this well written article interesting and informative regarding why the Russian economy didn't tank as bad as hoped/feared in the face of our sanctions.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,271
1,441
136
Disgusting



Using Starlink with drones went beyond the scope of an agreement SpaceX has with the Ukrainian government, Shotwell said, adding the contract was intended for humanitarian purposes such as providing broadband internet to hospitals, banks and families affected by Russia's invasion.

Shotwell said there was a agreement between SpaceX and the Ukrainian government as to what Starlink could be used for and what it couldn't be used for.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
1-It invaded last year because NATO by their own words admitted that a peace agreement they signed was a sham and never had any intention of peace, instead spent 8 years arming Ukraine with the intention of using Ukrainian bodies to fight wars for them. Not to mention Russia gave NATO one final notice in Dec 2021 addressing their security concerns and NATO basically told them to fuck off. Moral of the story; this could have all been avoided with some good ol fashion diplomacy and actually implementing peace agreements instead of trying to deceive the other end of that agreement.

As was pointed out, there's zero evidence NATO has been arming Ukraine to fight wars on its behalf. It would have needed the large-scale supply initiative we're seeing now... well, years ago. And has it not occurred to you that Ukraine spent the past eight years bolstering defenses (on its own terms, I'd add) because Russia illegally annexed Crimea and made clear that it wanted to steal more Ukrainian territory? When your neighbor's leader is an expansionist dictator who routinely lies about his intentions, you don't twiddle your thumbs waiting for him to attack again.


2-What difference does it make if the article is from a partisan conservative outlet? It’s a report on an interview, not an op-ed. So the solution of to look for the same story on a partisan left leaning outlet? Tried that. Guess what I found? Tons of references to the threat of killing Zelensky and no mention at all of Bennet stating the West killed a peace agreement. I wonder why?

You just proved it — you don't know how to read critically.

Critical reading means choosing sources that are reasonably neutral. It doesn't matter whether a piece is cast as a report or an editorial; a highly partisan outlet is more likely to cherry-pick claims, trust allegations based purely on someone's say-so (see: Bennett) and otherwise try to skew the facts to fit its agenda. In fact, you should be extra-wary when a highly partisan outfit presents something as a report, because it's trying to give a biased story a false air of legitimacy.

An example: I still remember seeing a news story on Fox News' website in spring 2003 that claimed the US had found WMD (a chemical weapons stockpile) shortly after the invasion of Iraq. It was an adamant and serious report; it... was a lie. The story was never corroborated by other sources, and vanished at a certain point. Fox clearly leapt on it because it supported the Republican narrative the network wanted to promote (that it 'had' to invade Iraq), and the framing as a report likely fooled some readers.

And that healthy caution I mentioned applies to partisanship across the political spectrum. Just as I don't trust Fox News, Daily Caller or a conservative think tank to produce reasonably objective news, I don't trust DailyKOS, Mother Jones or clearly liberal think tanks. I stick to generally neutral news sources like the BBC, Reuters and Associated Press. And even then, I'm not shutting down my critical thinking skills and trusting them explicitly; I'm still watching out for flaws in their reporting.


3-Zelensky is calling for more military aid because his handlers at the White House are telling him to do so. You actually think Zelensky is in charge? His entire country is dependent on US tax payer handouts at the moment. He will do and say what he is told. The two stories I mentioned are enough evidence to show Ukraine tried not once, but twice negotiating a deal with the Russians. I’m sure he would love to be able to get peace deal going, and go back to living a normal life with his wife and family instead of being on house arrest for another year which is what the majority of this forum want him to go thru.

This has already been shot down, so I won't rehash the argument, but... what did you think he would do even if we assume the peace deal claims are true? Roll over, betray his country and let most of the population hate his guts? He's asking for military aid because that's how his country retains its sovereignty in the face of a Russian invasion.


4-NATO in the last 20 years has caused more death and destruction than Russia ever has. Russia is not innocent either but let’s not pretend like NATO isn’t the bigger warmonger of the two. Russia has invaded Ukraine, Georgia, what else in the last 20 years? NATO on the other hand:

-Bombed the fuck out of Iraq
-Bombed the fuck out of Afghanistan
-Bombed the fuck out of Libya
-Currently illegally occupying Syria
-Supporting a genocide in Yemen
-Multiple coup attempts around the world etc…


We’re the terrorists. We go around trying to fuck over leaders and countries we don’t like. That’s the point of NATO. Maybe one day you guys will wake up and see that we’re not the good guys. Our country would be better off if we spent our tax money on our own people instead of funding entire countries during a war and writing a blank check to the Pentagon every year.

I'm not excusing NATO's participation in some bad behavior. It joined the US (if somewhat reluctantly) in the Iraq War, and there's certainly been decades of picking and choosing which leaders they'd like to support. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to vilify NATO's approaches to Ukraine and Russia. The truth remains that Russia under Putin is a belligerent that attacks purely for conquest, and it invaded Ukraine using clearly false pretenses ("de-Nazification," among others). You don't have to love NATO to see Russia is clearly in the wrong here.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,884
32,668
136
Using Starlink with drones went beyond the scope of an agreement SpaceX has with the Ukrainian government, Shotwell said, adding the contract was intended for humanitarian purposes such as providing broadband internet to hospitals, banks and families affected by Russia's invasion.

Shotwell said there was a agreement between SpaceX and the Ukrainian government as to what Starlink could be used for and what it couldn't be used for.

Ukraine could probably negotiate the use of the service for military purposes, which would cost more. SpaceX is really trying to sell service to the Pentagon so its not like they're morally opposed or anything.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,009
8,640
136
As was pointed out, there's zero evidence NATO has been arming Ukraine to fight wars on its behalf. It would have needed the large-scale supply initiative we're seeing now... well, years ago. And has it not occurred to you that Ukraine spent the past eight years bolstering defenses (on its own terms, I'd add) because Russia illegally annexed Crimea and made clear that it wanted to steal more Ukrainian territory? When your neighbor's leader is an expansionist dictator who routinely lies about his intentions, you don't twiddle your thumbs waiting for him to attack again.




You just proved it — you don't know how to read critically.

Critical reading means choosing sources that are reasonably neutral. It doesn't matter whether a piece is cast as a report or an editorial; a highly partisan outlet is more likely to cherry-pick claims, trust allegations based purely on someone's say-so (see: Bennett) and otherwise try to skew the facts to fit its agenda. In fact, you should be extra-wary when a highly partisan outfit presents something as a report, because it's trying to give a biased story a false air of legitimacy.

An example: I still remember seeing a news story on Fox News' website in spring 2003 that claimed the US had found WMD (a chemical weapons stockpile) shortly after the invasion of Iraq. It was an adamant and serious report; it... was a lie. The story was never corroborated by other sources, and vanished at a certain point. Fox clearly leapt on it because it supported the Republican narrative the network wanted to promote (that it 'had' to invade Iraq), and the framing as a report likely fooled some readers.

And that healthy caution I mentioned applies to partisanship across the political spectrum. Just as I don't trust Fox News, Daily Caller or a conservative think tank to produce reasonably objective news, I don't trust DailyKOS, Mother Jones or clearly liberal think tanks. I stick to generally neutral news sources like the BBC, Reuters and Associated Press. And even then, I'm not shutting down my critical thinking skills and trusting them explicitly; I'm still watching out for flaws in their reporting.




This has already been shot down, so I won't rehash the argument, but... what did you think he would do even if we assume the peace deal claims are true? Roll over, betray his country and let most of the population hate his guts? He's asking for military aid because that's how his country retains its sovereignty in the face of a Russian invasion.




I'm not excusing NATO's participation in some bad behavior. It joined the US (if somewhat reluctantly) in the Iraq War, and there's certainly been decades of picking and choosing which leaders they'd like to support. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to vilify NATO's approaches to Ukraine and Russia. The truth remains that Russia under Putin is a belligerent that attacks purely for conquest, and it invaded Ukraine using clearly false pretenses ("de-Nazification," among others). You don't have to love NATO to see Russia is clearly in the wrong here.
You may as well stop feeding the troll, man. They have repeatedly shown that they don't engage in any true dialog, but rather keep repeating the same skewed horseshit every single time. It goes nowhere.