Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[jaichind]

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1582434857761718273?s=20&t=liBBie_T...

It's odd that we're seeing so much anticipation (including some outright fake news a few days ago) about a Ukrainian Kherson offensive by Russian sources. I have to wonder if there's anything to it or if it's all information warfare, but I'm also not clear on what Russia stands to gain by scaring its own people sh*tless about an upcoming offensive.

More anticipation about a supposed Ukrainian offensive in Kherson Oblast. Nothing has come to surface publicly that would explain such a drastic change in messaging from this afternoon to this evening.

I'd guess it's just the old propaganda tactic of using opposing narratives at the same time. One is the official "everything is fine" narrative, the other is the bad outcome (in this case a Ukrainian offensive causing a Russian withdrawal/evacuation across the Dnipro/Dnieper River). In case the bad outcome occurs (which seems likely atm), the government doesn't look as bad as it would if the government messaging was only "everything is fine" until the proverbial s*** hits the fan.

https://twitter.com/PjotrSauer/status/1582468011130486785?s=20&t=LOI_oW_cXXQ...

Full video of Stremousov calling for evacuation "as quickly as possible", but also that they "will stand firm until the end" and "won't let the Nazis into the city".

https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1582472381519781888?s=20&t=LOI_oW_c...

[ProudModerate2]

Why is militaryland no longer giving us daily "invasion day summaries"?

https://militaryland.net/

[Frodo]

Ukrainians are (understandably) on a high after their recent victories:

Ukrainians overwhelmingly want to keep fighting – and want Crimea back, survey says; 30% of power plants destroyed: Live updates

[Dereich]

From Pro-Russian source "Intel Slava Z" telegram

The impending attack on Kherson is the last attempt by Kiev to take advantage of the numerical advantage at the front. It is better for the peaceful civilians to leave, the Russian army will fight seriously this time!

Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the tactics of conducting SMO, it is obvious that this coincided with the appointment of a new commander - General Surovikin. We already wrote earlier that before the arrival of reserves and those mobilized from the regions of Russia to the front, Kiev has a very small window of opportunity to attempt a counterattack in the Kherson direction. It is the capture of Kherson, as the only regional center liberated by Russia, that the British and American "masters" set for Zelensky as the main task. And as reported, the “deadline” for this task is no longer measured in months, but in weeks. Obviously, Kiev will throw into battle all available reserves, while spitting on the lives of soldiers and officers. The war to the last Ukrainian will continue.

In this regard, it is worth noting once again that the decision to evacuate civilians and prepare Kherson for defense is the only correct one. The lives of citizens of the Russian Federation will be saved, and Russian troops will have the opportunity to build fortified areas and freedom of tactical maneuvers. It is possible that subsequently Kherson may also become a springboard for the further offensive of our army on the lands still occupied by Kiev.

So interesting to see that the Russians are still trying to push the line that the mobilization is scaring the Ukrainians into action. If there is a Ukrainian offensive in the works the reasoning is much more likely the one that practically everyone has been mentioning for months: the need to complete major operations before the weather makes offensives difficult. The Russians so very much want to believe that the Ukrainians have no agency; that they only act in response to their "masters" or in poorly thought out desperation tactics to stop Russia's newest plans that will (surely this time) win them the war.

[NOVA Green]

Natural considering many PUBs are parroting Tucker Carlson (and those of their ilk) talking points.

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

 

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

It is ironic that given how many Russo-Persian wars took place between the 1650s and 1820s now Iran emerge as a key ally for Russia.

Fascist Russia and Theocratic Fascist Iran agree on one thing: the western world order of democracy and human rights, not to mention US power, must be overturned.

Neither of those two regimes are even remotely close to fascism.

"Not even remotely close".

Imagine unironically believing this.

The poster in question also thinks Pinochet wasn't right wing.

Oh FFs, that’s not what I said at all. I said that just as Pinochet was right wing in part because of his privatization schemes, the Ayatollah’s are left wing because of their nationalization schemes. How is that argument hard to follow?

Because it's dumb.

[Person Man]

It is ironic that given how many Russo-Persian wars took place between the 1650s and 1820s now Iran emerge as a key ally for Russia.

Fascist Russia and Theocratic Fascist Iran agree on one thing: the western world order of democracy and human rights, not to mention US power, must be overturned.

Neither of those two regimes are even remotely close to fascism.

"Not even remotely close".

Imagine unironically believing this.

The poster in question also thinks Pinochet wasn't right wing.

Oh FFs, that’s not what I said at all. I said that just as Pinochet was right wing in part because of his privatization schemes, the Ayatollah’s are left wing because of their nationalization schemes. How is that argument hard to follow?

Because it's dumb.

Are Poland and Hungary “left wing” for their welfare states for children?

[Virginiá]

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1582499369898561538

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Natural considering many PUBs are parroting Tucker Carlson (and those of their ilk) talking points.

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

 

Perhaps - but Putin is no Soviet. Part of the polling shift here is probably boomer Republicans (very slowly) catching onto this fact.

One of the unfortunate results of the past months’ nuclear nonsense may be the revival of Reagan’s Star Wars. Ballistic missile defence, especially the kind of ICBM defence meant to stop nuclear strikes, would at least incur expensive development costs.

[Pericles]

Ukrainians are (understandably) on a high after their recent victories:

Ukrainians overwhelmingly want to keep fighting – and want Crimea back, survey says; 30% of power plants destroyed: Live updates

McCarthy really said that? What a piece of sh*t. He is such a spineless coward that he can't understand what it's like for people to actually stand up to evil.

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

Ronald Reagan is a serious contender for the most pro-Russia president this country has ever had. Pro-Russian government? That probably goes to FDR. But pro-Russia? Ronald Reagan.

[NOVA Green]

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

Ronald Reagan is a serious contender for the most pro-Russia president this country has ever had. Pro-Russian government? That probably goes to FDR. But pro-Russia? Ronald Reagan.

What are you even talking about???

Pro-Russia President versus Pro-Russian Gvt???

Also, please explain exactly in precise detail while you consider Ronald Reagan to be the most "Pro Russian President this country has ever had".

Confused in Oregon who grew up under Mr. Reagans Presidency???

Get it that FDR and Churchill had to do a deal with Stalin to eliminate the scourge of Nazism and Fascism in Europe, but really WTF are you even talking about?

Assuming you are texting on phone and hence not able to explain your positions with greater detail, but just like Ann Landers gotta follow up with a "Dear Reader" style question to explain your completely bizarre and generally unintelligible post?

Curious in Oregon and likely much of Atlas wants further explanation for your points stated.

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

Ronald Reagan is a serious contender for the most pro-Russia president this country has ever had. Pro-Russian government? That probably goes to FDR. But pro-Russia? Ronald Reagan.

What are you even talking about???

Pro-Russia President versus Pro-Russian Gvt???

Also, please explain exactly in precise detail while you consider Ronald Reagan to be the most "Pro Russian President this country has ever had".

Confused in Oregon who grew up under Mr. Reagans Presidency???

Get it that FDR and Churchill had to do a deal with Stalin to eliminate the scourge of Nazism and Fascism in Europe, but really WTF are you even talking about?

Assuming you are texting on phone and hence not able to explain your positions with greater detail, but just like Ann Landers gotta follow up with a "Dear Reader" style question to explain your completely bizarre and generally unintelligible post?

Curious in Oregon and likely much of Atlas wants further explanation for your points stated.

No president’s actions have brought more benefit to the country of Russia than Reagan’s did, by taking down the Soviet Union.

No president has strengthened the Russian government’s power as much as FDR did, because FDR personally liked Stalin and reflected that liking in his actions towards the Soviet Union.

[KaiserDave]

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

Ronald Reagan is a serious contender for the most pro-Russia president this country has ever had. Pro-Russian government? That probably goes to FDR. But pro-Russia? Ronald Reagan.

What are you even talking about???

Pro-Russia President versus Pro-Russian Gvt???

Also, please explain exactly in precise detail while you consider Ronald Reagan to be the most "Pro Russian President this country has ever had".

Confused in Oregon who grew up under Mr. Reagans Presidency???

Get it that FDR and Churchill had to do a deal with Stalin to eliminate the scourge of Nazism and Fascism in Europe, but really WTF are you even talking about?

Assuming you are texting on phone and hence not able to explain your positions with greater detail, but just like Ann Landers gotta follow up with a "Dear Reader" style question to explain your completely bizarre and generally unintelligible post?

Curious in Oregon and likely much of Atlas wants further explanation for your points stated.

No president’s actions have brought more benefit to the country of Russia than Reagan’s did, by taking down the Soviet Union.

No president has strengthened the Russian government’s power as much as FDR did, because FDR personally liked Stalin and reflected that liking in his actions towards the Soviet Union.

Reagan did not take down the Soviet Union.

FDR did not "strengthen the Russian government's power" in any exceptional way.

You don't understand history, stop talking about it and read a book.

[Hindsight was 2020]

A interesting vid on the war status

[NOVA Green]

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

Ronald Reagan is a serious contender for the most pro-Russia president this country has ever had. Pro-Russian government? That probably goes to FDR. But pro-Russia? Ronald Reagan.

What are you even talking about???

Pro-Russia President versus Pro-Russian Gvt???

Also, please explain exactly in precise detail while you consider Ronald Reagan to be the most "Pro Russian President this country has ever had".

Confused in Oregon who grew up under Mr. Reagans Presidency???

Get it that FDR and Churchill had to do a deal with Stalin to eliminate the scourge of Nazism and Fascism in Europe, but really WTF are you even talking about?

Assuming you are texting on phone and hence not able to explain your positions with greater detail, but just like Ann Landers gotta follow up with a "Dear Reader" style question to explain your completely bizarre and generally unintelligible post?

Curious in Oregon and likely much of Atlas wants further explanation for your points stated.

No president’s actions have brought more benefit to the country of Russia than Reagan’s did, by taking down the Soviet Union.

No president has strengthened the Russian government’s power as much as FDR did, because FDR personally liked Stalin and reflected that liking in his actions towards the Soviet Union.

Not quite sure how you claim that "Mr. Reagan took down the Soviet Union".

Reality is that the Soviet Empire overextended itself and got involved in a "ground war in Asia" (Afghanistan).

That combined with structural economic issues within the extended Eastern European trading bloc, effectively which went way back to the 1970s, where certain types of modern industrial computer based mfg techs were effectively vetoed in East Germany, which at one point was one of the top 10 Global MFG powerhouses.

Giving Mr. Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is seriously a massive Hash and Opium pipe double hit off the glass pipe.

Russian Invasion of Afghanistan is the major cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union, combined with their neglect of investments in computer automation of factories, even within heavily advanced industrialized countries such as East Germany.

Another major factor to consider when it comes to the collapse of the "Eastern Bloc", was also a "crisis of confidence among the elites".

By this I mean that the existential battle between "Soviet Communism" vs "Western Capitalism", started to shift hard towards countries like West Germany where GDP ratios started to hit the roof as part of Modell Deutschland  ab den 1960er Jahren.

Whatever dude--- Grok Reagan might have occasionally done a few positive things here or there, but really, is this the hill you want to die on???

[TheReckoning]

Reagan did not take down the Soviet Union.

FDR did not "strengthen the Russian government's power" in any exceptional way.

You don't understand history, stop talking about it and read a book.

Reagan didn’t take down the Soviet Union single handedly, but he was, in my opinion, the single most important individual that led to Soviet Union and it’s influence over the world ending. A lot of people would say it was actually Gorbachev, but actually, Gorbachev had no realistic choice but to call the project quits. So yeah, he did more to help the country of Russia than any other president. I challenge you to submit an alternative to him and FDR.

[bagelman]

Reagan did not take down the Soviet Union.

FDR did not "strengthen the Russian government's power" in any exceptional way.

You don't understand history, stop talking about it and read a book.

blah blah blah

Can we stop with this? Reagan is dead, this thread is about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Frodo]

Putin must be so relieved by this point -he knows now he can depend on the Republican Party to come through for him in the end.  All he has to do is hold on for just a few more months until Congress changes hands in January:

McCarthy: No 'blank check' for Ukraine if GOP wins majority

[KaiserDave]

Reagan did not take down the Soviet Union.

FDR did not "strengthen the Russian government's power" in any exceptional way.

You don't understand history, stop talking about it and read a book.

Reagan didn’t take down the Soviet Union single handedly, but he was, in my opinion, the single most important individual that led to Soviet Union and it’s influence over the world ending. A lot of people would say it was actually Gorbachev, but actually, Gorbachev had no realistic choice but to call the project quits. So yeah, he did more to help the country of Russia than any other president. I challenge you to submit an alternative to him and FDR.

Your opinion is bad. Reagan had little to no major contribution to the collapse of the USSR. Viewing history as "which individual contributed the most to complex events" is very silly. I am not going to play silly games.

The collapse of the USSR is a very complicated process that is debated upon and still researched by scholars today. It is not as simple as "which guy did the most." As I have said, to you, multiple times before I usually like to point out the massive inefficiencies inherent in the Soviet economic structure, the stagnation and sclerotic leadership culture developed during the Brezhnev period, and the unresolved question of nationalities were the main underlying causes. This is why Gorbachev had to "call it quits." It has nothing to do with anything Ronald Reagan did. Gorbachev's reforms brought about political circumstances that these deep seeded problems presented themselves in inescapable and challenging ways. In that way you could say Gorbachev was the most important, you could also argue that Gorbachev is less important, in either case Reagan is not important. I know you are entirely immune to reason, but please consider that you do not in fact know your history.

As for FDR being the most "pro Russian government" President we've ever had. I guess if you consider Lend-Lease to the USSR (I don't know what FDR "personally liking Stalin" means or it is relevant), that is maybe true? But if you think Lend-Lease to the USSR is a bad thing, you might be a Nazi, or just wrong.

[bagelman]

Reagan did not take down the Soviet Union.

FDR did not "strengthen the Russian government's power" in any exceptional way.

You don't understand history, stop talking about it and read a book.

Reagan didn’t take down the Soviet Union single handedly, but he was, in my opinion, the single most important individual that led to Soviet Union and it’s influence over the world ending. A lot of people would say it was actually Gorbachev, but actually, Gorbachev had no realistic choice but to call the project quits. So yeah, he did more to help the country of Russia than any other president. I challenge you to submit an alternative to him and FDR.

Your opinion is bad. Reagan had little to no major contribution to the collapse of the USSR. Viewing history as "which individual contributed the most to complex events" is very silly. I am not going to play silly games.

The collapse of the USSR is a very complicated process that is debated upon and still researched by scholars today. It is not as simple as "which guy did the most." As I have said, to you, multiple times before I usually like to point out the massive inefficiencies inherent in the Soviet economic structure, the stagnation and sclerotic leadership culture developed during the Brezhnev period, and the unresolved question of nationalities were the main underlying causes. This is why Gorbachev had to "call it quits." It has nothing to do with anything Ronald Reagan did. Gorbachev's reforms brought about political circumstances that these deep seeded problems presented themselves in inescapable and challenging ways. In that way you could say Gorbachev was the most important, you could also argue that Gorbachev is less important, in either case Reagan is not important. I know you are entirely immune to reason, but please consider that you do not in fact know your history.

As for FDR being the most "pro Russian government" President we've ever had. I guess if you consider Lend-Lease to the USSR (I don't know what FDR "personally liking Stalin" means or it is relevant), that is maybe true? But if you think Lend-Lease to the USSR is a bad thing, you might be a Nazi, or just wrong.

You're right but there's little reason for you to have bothered responding. This thread is about the war, not about FDR or Stalin or whatever. Let's not waste our time allowing people to derail everything.

Putin must be so relieved by this point -he knows now he can depend on the Republican Party to come through for him in the end.  All he has to do is hold on for just a few more months until Congress changes hands in January:

McCarthy: No 'blank check' for Ukraine if GOP wins majority

Yep, and this will be during the winter so mobility will overall decrease. Still I doubt Putin is jumping for joy at the overall war situation, the situation with the GOP in the US is a minor victory at best.

[KaiserDave]

Ironically, making the claim that Reagan was the one who brought down the Soviet Union through....I don't even know it's such a stupid argument. Well whatever, it gives the Soviet system a lot of credit! That if only REAGAN hadn't done whatever he did, that the functional Soviet system would have continued and persisted without issue. No, the Soviet system was rotten and inflexible and incapable of responding to crisis or modern challenges. This became evident at the Chernobyl Disaster for instance, but also in the geriatric, sclerotic, and corrupt way in which the USSR was run on a daily basis. The system was not going to last. There was going to be a crisis of the Soviet system, and it could have transpired in different ways than it did. Reagan was not involved.  

[KaiserDave]

Reagan did not take down the Soviet Union.

FDR did not "strengthen the Russian government's power" in any exceptional way.

You don't understand history, stop talking about it and read a book.

Reagan didn’t take down the Soviet Union single handedly, but he was, in my opinion, the single most important individual that led to Soviet Union and it’s influence over the world ending. A lot of people would say it was actually Gorbachev, but actually, Gorbachev had no realistic choice but to call the project quits. So yeah, he did more to help the country of Russia than any other president. I challenge you to submit an alternative to him and FDR.

Your opinion is bad. Reagan had little to no major contribution to the collapse of the USSR. Viewing history as "which individual contributed the most to complex events" is very silly. I am not going to play silly games.

The collapse of the USSR is a very complicated process that is debated upon and still researched by scholars today. It is not as simple as "which guy did the most." As I have said, to you, multiple times before I usually like to point out the massive inefficiencies inherent in the Soviet economic structure, the stagnation and sclerotic leadership culture developed during the Brezhnev period, and the unresolved question of nationalities were the main underlying causes. This is why Gorbachev had to "call it quits." It has nothing to do with anything Ronald Reagan did. Gorbachev's reforms brought about political circumstances that these deep seeded problems presented themselves in inescapable and challenging ways. In that way you could say Gorbachev was the most important, you could also argue that Gorbachev is less important, in either case Reagan is not important. I know you are entirely immune to reason, but please consider that you do not in fact know your history.

As for FDR being the most "pro Russian government" President we've ever had. I guess if you consider Lend-Lease to the USSR (I don't know what FDR "personally liking Stalin" means or it is relevant), that is maybe true? But if you think Lend-Lease to the USSR is a bad thing, you might be a Nazi, or just wrong.

You're right but there's little reason for you to have bothered responding. This thread is about the war, not about FDR or Stalin or whatever.

You are right, he is a bad-faith actor who never engages in honest discussion anyway.

[Pericles]

The breakup of the Soviet Union was a disaster for ordinary Russians, unlike them winning WWII (which FDR actually helped with) and so not being outright genocided by Hitler.