Ok, how about you take a listen to this guy:
I'm not taking Russia's word for things, I'm taking his word/analysis seriously.
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
I'm not taking Russia's word for things, I'm taking his word/analysis seriously.
We had Analysts back during the late 1960s saying the MIG 25 Foxbat was this unstoppable superjet also. Turned out to be Russian bunk that they put out to fool the west.
I'm not worried about the radiation from those torps. It's the infrastructure damage that's potentially problematic. Depends on how those weapons actually function. Biggest problem I could see is the sheer damage it may do to the fisheries.
Eh, I'd be worried about the radiation, too.
One of those suckers going off is going to cause a lot of radioactive sea-bottom to get chucked onto the shore, and well, it's completely possible the nukes in the Status-6's are salted nukes.
This whole story is a desperate, disgustingly dishonest attempt by DNC to use one of few causes where they can appeal to the popular option beyond own party to shore up their numbers with centrist GOP\independent voters.
In reality, if you think a minute about it, it becomes clear how ridiculous that is.
86 to 11...
Senate votes to pass $40 billion Ukraine aid package
The Senate voted Thursday to pass a roughly $40 billion bill to send aid to Ukraine as the country fights back against Russia's brutal and unprovoked attacks.edition.cnn.com
Over 3\4 of GOP senators also vote in support of Ukraine aid as you can see. Even in a rather unlikely scenario where GOP gets 10 extra senators and all 10 are vehemently against Ukraine, the Ukraine aid packages could still get through easily with the bipartisan support.
House votes?
Similar story:
368:57
Press Releases
appropriations.house.gov
There are 220 D congresscritters, so there had to be at least 148 out of 212 R ones voting for it.
So even if by some miracle GOP took all seats in House and Senate, if these proportions within GOP were kept, Ukraine bills would still be passing by over 2:3 margin.
The fear is that this problem will grow more severe due to more Republicans gradually taking more and more orders on this issue from their Big Orange Kahuna. Though I suppose that it's entirely possible that enough of them will remain pro-Ukraine to even override Trump's vetoes in regards to this if Trump will win again in 2024.
That implies a degree of control Trump never had on GOP even in areas he is supposed to care about a lot (immigration restriction), while the Ukraine thing isn't one of them.
Republicans have moved in a more restrictionist direction ever since Trump, no?
Would be even funnier if pigs actually managed to fly!
This assumes Trump would veto aid to Ukraine; he may like to wheel and deal, but I think even he realizes no more good faith deals can be made with Putin.
Whether Trump get's re-elected or not, I doubt support for Ukraine is going to drop among the majority of the nation. And what the majority of the GOP has done is support Ukraine being free, but some fiscal conservatives and parts of the contrarian-right has come out against helping Ukraine for monetary or 'not our borders'/'russia trad, west globohomo' reasons.Republicans have moved in a more restrictionist direction ever since Trump, no?
Would be even funnier if pigs actually managed to fly!
Of course since the GOP is in many regards controlled opposition for the Dems, I guess it is possible the GOP leadership and Trump may actually shoot themselves in the foot that way.
If the GOP is actually controlled opposition, then the Dems will use their control of the GOP to ensure that the GOP will keep the Ukrainian aid money flowing.
And supporting Russia for being trad is funny considering that the anti-abortion movement in Russia is much, much weaker than it is here in the US. Nor are Russians busy breeding a lot like Israeli Jews are.
That's 2 years later, not after midterms.
With the numbers shown in recent votes, could he even veto it effectively?
If this war is still going on in 2 years, then we have bigger problems.
In the unlikely event it is, then I doubt Trump would want to cut aid, because he knows it would gut the MAGA movement, and what ever legacy he wants to have, would go down in flames.
If the war is still going on, and on, and on... Trump will run on a platform of bringing it to an end.
'Worst case' modeling of a breach of the Nova Kakhovka Dam. It would result in a four or five meter wave striking the Antonovsky Bridge about nineteen hours after the breach simulated. The water will move like a flood over the lowlands as opposed to some sort of "rushing wave" though it's uncertain if the Bridge could withstand the impact as that was not part of the simulation. The wave will rise in level further down the river and will largely drown out the delta at the mouth of the river over the next two days. The flow will also surge up the Inhulets and Bug River, causing flooding in the Mykolaiv Oblast and city proper. But it would be the areas on the left bank (or southeast bank/ Russian controlled) of the river that would be most affected and would almost certainly result in deaths from the flooding.
cornucopia.se
Cornucopia said:
Worst case modelling for Nova Kakhovka dam break (UPDATED)
A worst case modelling for a russian demolition of the Nova Kakhovka Dnipro river dam show that the worst flooding will take place on the left (south east) side of the river bank. A 4 - 5 m wave will hit the Antonovsky bridge east of Cherson city after 19 hours, and there will be a backswell floodin
cornucopia.se
Anatoly Karlin 🧬⏩ (@powerfultakes)
Loose equivalent would be if a Western-colonized Russia condemned China for Uyghurs & Tibet, sheltered Falun Gong terrorists, regularly entrapped Chinese citizens, gave bases to US in RFE & sent arms to Taiwan... Then pulled a pikachu face when China marched into Haishenwai.
nitter.1d4.us
This argument seems rather difficult. I mean, first of all, Russia aimed to conquer all of Ukraine, not simply conquer a small border area, but even quite independently of that, by that logic, Austria-Hungary would have been justified in invading Serbia in 1914 (even without the Sarajevo murders) due to it being threatened by Serbia's close ties with Russia, Yes? And Nazi Germany would have been justified in invading Poland in 1939 due to it being threatened by Poland's alliances with Britain and France, Yes?
Combination of Russian imperialists being grandmasters of projection, and not knowing shit.Anatoly Karlin 🧬⏩ (@powerfultakes)
Loose equivalent would be if a Western-colonized Russia condemned China for Uyghurs & Tibet, sheltered Falun Gong terrorists, regularly entrapped Chinese citizens, gave bases to US in RFE & sent arms to Taiwan... Then pulled a pikachu face when China marched into Haishenwai.
The funny thing that other than randomly entrapping Chinese citizens (something countries with a wild east legal system do, but western countries cannot legally do, even if it served their national interests to play these games like hardball), all the western aligned countries around China already do all or most of these things since years, and China is doing jack shit about it.
If USA had the same military presence in Ukraine as it does in South Korea, Russia would not as much as sneeze in the direction of Ukraine.
Well, he is trying to justify a set of "rules of the game" that allows a liberal selection of excuses for imperialist landgrabs... obviously with intent to use those. Not completely irrational, because he knows that the other side is not interested in abusing such rules anyway, so it's an advantage for his side if they were fooled into accepting them.
Hilariously enough, if Israel of all places used these "hostility justifies invasion" rules to own neighbors, by now it might have an empire spanning the whole Middle East and a chunk of Asia
In case you're wondering, the Battle for Bakhmut continues... With Russian Offensives since July led by mostly Wagner/Prisoner formations.
Sad. This guy seemed witty.
Wonder what the best World War One Analogue for this Battle will be.
Sad. This guy seemed witty.
Wonder what the best World War One Analogue for this Battle will be.
Combination of Russian imperialists being grandmasters of projection, and not knowing shit.
The funny thing that other than randomly entrapping Chinese citizens (something countries with a wild east legal system do, but western countries cannot legally do, even if it served their national interests to play these games like hardball), all the western aligned countries around China already do all or most of these things since years, and China is doing jack shit about it.
If USA had the same military presence in Ukraine as it does in South Korea, Russia would not as much as sneeze in the direction of Ukraine.
Well, he is trying to justify a set of "rules of the game" that allows a liberal selection of excuses for imperialist landgrabs... obviously with intent to use those. Not completely irrational, because he knows that the other side is not interested in abusing such rules anyway, so it's an advantage for his side if they were fooled into accepting them.
Hilariously enough, if Israel of all places used these "hostility justifies invasion" rules to own neighbors, by now it might have an empire spanning the whole Middle East and a chunk of Asia
I wonder when exactly Ukraine actually tried to entrap Russian citizens. And FWIW, China is still weaker in comparison to the US, so far at least. And Yep, absolutely, if the US would have actually been willing to directly fight for Ukraine just like it is for South Korea, then Russia would not have dared to invade Ukraine. For that matter, I suppose that if someone hates "Western Supremacy" so much, one would regret the fact that North Korea lost the Korean War and that Imperial Japan lost the Pacific Theater of World War II to the US.
Yep, by his logic, Israel would have been perfectly justified in conquering all of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq if it would have actually had the capacity to do this while those countries would have still been hostile to Israel--and presumably subsequently expelling their populations en masse due to them being a hostile element and also because Israel needs all of that additional space since Israel, unlike Russia and Western countries, actually has a relatively high total fertility rate.
And Yeah, as I said, if countries' own views on their security were paramount, then Germany would have been justified in waging a preventative war against the Franco-Russians in 1914 even without the Sarajevo murders, as would Austria-Hungary have been in waging a preventative war against Serbia during the same time (again, even without the Sarajevo murders):
And Nazi Germany would have been justified in attacking Czechoslovakia and Poland because it could have claimed to have feared Western encirclement, with Czechoslovakia and Poland being French and/or British allies. When your own logic can be used to justify Nazi aggression, well, it probably is time to think about adopting some different and better logic.
Verdun? Especially if Bakhmut will permanently hold. The World War II equivalent for this might be Stalingrad, aka the Red Verdun:
