Putin Recognizes Donbass Republics, Sends Russian Military to 'Denazify' Ukraine
- Thread starter bjorb
- Start date
Adding to the above: it's not about comparing Russia with Iran; it's about the striking resemblance of the tactics used and plus long chain of events involving Russian strategic and nuclear assets.
Oh...
"The response of the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry M.V. Zakharova to the media question about the prospect of Russian-American consultations"
"Question: Could you clarify when the next Russian-American bilateral consultations will take place?"
"Answer: To date, the next meeting in the framework of bilateral consultations to eliminate the “irritants” in order to normalize the activities of the diplomatic missions of both countries has been canceled at the initiative of American negotiators. We hope that the pause they take will not become too long."
Last edited:
So, basically, extracting what is relevant to this thread, he says Russia has quickly figured it out and brings up the RIA Novosti article about rehearsal and both year-long preparations by Biden's/Trump's & Netanyahu's intelligence operation, involving deep penetration in each country and drones use, and subsequent attacks on strategic military facilities first in Russia and then, escalated, Iran.
The SVR has announced Kiev's plans to stage a Russian attack on a US Navy ship
(link goes to the article via translator)Peace talks? What peace?
mantle
Jedi Master
Today countries seem as full of agents of chaos as abandoned dogs are with fleas.
That America has once again moved from strategic stupidity , by conniving with Israel's maligned surprise attack on Iran, to imperial disaster that shows the world how double faced it really is , and therefore never to be trusted again by the many who fell for it , specially when Trump bandied the word " Peace ", is to many discerning observers informative and very frightening. It is a sign of how late our hour really is and of how bankrupt America has become.
I think Trump hates Russia and has nasty plans there also .
Does he feel shame ? No. If he did he would not be a politician.
As the song goes " Not dark yet but getting there."
Double dealing is an addiction and we the gentle are its victims forever it seems but these are periodic human traumas against the souls of all who have chosen a conscious path. Be assured
Who saws torments receives tempests and for the chosen a bloody nose that no surgical procedure will fix.
That America has once again moved from strategic stupidity , by conniving with Israel's maligned surprise attack on Iran, to imperial disaster that shows the world how double faced it really is , and therefore never to be trusted again by the many who fell for it , specially when Trump bandied the word " Peace ", is to many discerning observers informative and very frightening. It is a sign of how late our hour really is and of how bankrupt America has become.
I think Trump hates Russia and has nasty plans there also .
Does he feel shame ? No. If he did he would not be a politician.
As the song goes " Not dark yet but getting there."
Double dealing is an addiction and we the gentle are its victims forever it seems but these are periodic human traumas against the souls of all who have chosen a conscious path. Be assured
Who saws torments receives tempests and for the chosen a bloody nose that no surgical procedure will fix.
ApotheosisMMC.
Jedi Council Member
Hello, although the matter is more or less clarified here, I was also reading the various treaties and their annexes as a personal exercise to see if there was anything that could be significant enough to validate the possibility that something could be understood at some point that would support the controversial idea that airplanes should be parked in the open air to avoid unnecessary tensions and suspicions of the other party (the 3 STARTs, the SALTs and the Open Skies Treaty), I tried hard not to anticipate and thus find something since my position at this point is that there would be nothing and indeed there was nothing, what I DID find is that the STARTs are officially explained by the United States State Department to avoid false interpretations among people who were not present during the negotiations or did not participate in their constitution, it is in these explanations that what was already said by Article X is emphasized even more:
And in the protocol (Let us remind any reader who joins that this refers to on-site inspections):
In other words, it is concluded again that shelters-hangars can be built for heavy nuclear bombers without the need for satellite monitoring, and therefore the right to inspect these shelters during visits to know what is inside was agreed upon... This point could not have been agreed upon if any of the other treaties mentioned required having nuclear bombers in the open air.
You say that it is not an excuse, but without meaning to be cliché or melodramatic, understanding what Jeep said and what you are trying to convey, that one should try to remain calm and not give in to emotions or the conditions of the situation in order to avoid possible overreactions, it is a valid excuse for me, come on, there is no pride in your words and you are being completely open and thorough in your explanation, things happen, there was a set of factors that put you in a relatively difficult position that we were not aware of (that counts); but my grossly careless post led to what happened and yet you kept your composure and gave me a detailed response without aggression or words that were not appropriate despite having a certain degree of annoyance in it, (I should have asked, but the "dopamine" part implied that you had a bad time outside the forum on this topic, I tried a little of it later) I did not feel at all belittled or personally attacked since there was none of that in the message, on the contrary I felt very grateful and I took it as an urgent call to correct an unattended facet of mine that does not do any good to my personal growth or to the forum ... in fact perhaps a "too soft" response would not have woken me up or created such a significant impression.
And just in case, no, I didn't let certain feelings of self-sabotage for what I did become more widespread than just noticing them. I took a better path of seeing my inappropriate action and what I should do to correct it without hesitation. It's enough for me ("it's not that big a deal," but I really wouldn't like to continue being so vulnerable and unserious about something so basic).
As I said, in my case I didn't even do my homework, and although you may have thought about it more or less unconsciously, you didn't close the debate as such either. You perhaps only wanted more seriousness and for the answers on this matter to show a truly thorough analysis, given that this is how it should be and it hadn't been like that either here or elsewhere.
I see that the underlying idea is more than pointing out that this doesn't have its place in certain contexts; it was that it doesn't do us any good in terms of generally seeking the truth, developing critical thinking, and other faculties, and of course, it makes us vulnerable and weak. This isn't a place where people participate just to hang out, and it would be a huge shame to lose what we've built.
I won't continue with this and will return to the topic since you've explained it very well and the ramifications are easy to understand. Besides, the point was to point out why this issue regarding START III has possibly become so widespread. The day after I posted my first post on this topic, I browsed Russian forums and websites (like Topwar) to see what they were saying. I saw some division, but mostly people complaining about the incompetence of the military authorities, calling for revenge, feeling outraged by what happened, and pointing to Copium's explanations regarding the treaty being ambiguous or stating that the planes should be left exposed. In part, I simply think the issue became widespread due to careless readings and misinterpretations (and repeating what others said), which in turn combined with a superficial self-confirmation bias resulting from being dazzled by seeing the planes exposed without any apparent explanation to justify it.
This time, the issue became even more widespread, given that on social media, speed often prevails over analysis, and the situation was too shocking for many to think calmly without getting carried away. I said I understood your frustration because I saw a Spanish guy a few days later who I considered (and still consider to some extent) to be sufficiently well informed and rigorous in dealing with these issues (he is dedicated to debunking things about NAFOS and is generally at odds with them all) point out in X that there were many people who continued to tell him in the comments that this aspect of the treaty was not true. As I had occasionally spoken to him and had seen him readily admit when he was wrong on some point, I told him that I thought the same at first, but that after a more careful reading and in context, there was no such agreement in any of the treaties and that I would like someone to explain to me where it was implied that this was the case. People came to me with screenshots similar to the one I brought here to the forum; that the AI had confirmed it and that was the case. I told them that the title gave the context and that reading the treaty you could see that the exhibits referred to on-site reviews and therefore I pointed out that they shouldn't trust the AIs. I also said that START III was the one that had validity over the others and that Article X said that the bombers were exempt from being left in the open if desired.
They told me that I had an exaggerated ego to say that the AI was wrong and they also refused to read the article out of laziness; they had already "done their work" and had been kind enough to answer me and I was being obtuse and ungrateful. the guy himself came to tell me that I had swallowed all the Ukrainian Nazi propaganda from the NAFOs that the Russians were drunks who were spinning on the runway and that my problem was that I was taking some points too literally (by this point I realized that I had started to feel gaslighting and it caused me some grace to remember your words about this at that moment), after that I adjusted my language on purpose, although I had not been rude to anyone, I knew that I could not be so dry if I wanted to get something and I told him without lying that I did not care about the cheap NAFOS, that my request was sincere and that I only wanted to know the truth, that I understood that he was probably obfuscated, so I promised to be totally cooperative and open if he took the trouble to attend to my request ... I was completely prepared for him to come with something more substantial, but he only called me "poor thing", that the US had their B-2s parked outdoors on Diego Garcia because Putin ordered them to.
I told him it wasn't true, that the B-2s had their hangars at Withman Air Base (By the way, START I, which is where the controversy mainly arises, was signed in 1991, but there are photos from 1993 of the aforementioned base in which you can see all the B-2 hangars that are there today, already built at that time, so even that treaty is ruled out in the aspect of requiring that the planes be outdoors.) and that in Diego Garcia they had portable hangars despite being outdoors for certain periods of time as seen in certain photos as we have already seen.
Not receiving any more answers, I think that after your previous message you had decided that you were not going to dedicate any more time to me.
Finally I went to see what good old Simplicius had to say about this issue, he didn't buy into all this "controversy" at all, he made a minor mistake by pointing out that although the B-2s had hangars at Whitman, they didn't have them at Diego Garcia, he probably didn't notice this other type of hangars for some reason, but in general he stressed the now obvious fact that other types of bombers were not kept in hangars, including cheaper ones and in greater numbers like the B-52 for practical reasons due to their size, it's worth noting that part of his article included a video that he himself had published a week before the events of Operation Spiderweb in which Defense Minister Andrei Belousov was presented with a proposal for a hangar for a TU-160 in this case, so the idea of building them was still around.
substack.com
So, well, in conclusion, there was nothing in the treaties, and this misconception is something that gained much more traction than it should have in recent times, partly due to the initial chaos and the AIs that emphatically affirmed it.
The whole issue of having the planes out in the open responded to practical reasons for resources, and the hangars weren't perceived as sufficiently necessary. After all, the Russians relied on their anti-drone and anti-aircraft defenses and on moving planes between bases to more distant locations (which worked well enough). Almost no one could foresee and be prepared for an operation in which drones would take off from trucks infiltrated deep inside the country and far from the battlefront. Many times in war, things happen that later seem obvious or resulted in some degree of catastrophe because certain vulnerabilities weren't properly covered.
PS: Curiously, Big Serge points out that both the Chinese and the Russians were experimenting some time ago with the same model and were criticized for the idea of using weapons camouflaged as civilian objects.
A couple of final candies:
Link: Article-By-Article Analysis of New START Treaty Documents
And in the protocol (Let us remind any reader who joins that this refers to on-site inspections):
In other words, it is concluded again that shelters-hangars can be built for heavy nuclear bombers without the need for satellite monitoring, and therefore the right to inspect these shelters during visits to know what is inside was agreed upon... This point could not have been agreed upon if any of the other treaties mentioned required having nuclear bombers in the open air.
You say that it is not an excuse, but without meaning to be cliché or melodramatic, understanding what Jeep said and what you are trying to convey, that one should try to remain calm and not give in to emotions or the conditions of the situation in order to avoid possible overreactions, it is a valid excuse for me, come on, there is no pride in your words and you are being completely open and thorough in your explanation, things happen, there was a set of factors that put you in a relatively difficult position that we were not aware of (that counts); but my grossly careless post led to what happened and yet you kept your composure and gave me a detailed response without aggression or words that were not appropriate despite having a certain degree of annoyance in it, (I should have asked, but the "dopamine" part implied that you had a bad time outside the forum on this topic, I tried a little of it later) I did not feel at all belittled or personally attacked since there was none of that in the message, on the contrary I felt very grateful and I took it as an urgent call to correct an unattended facet of mine that does not do any good to my personal growth or to the forum ... in fact perhaps a "too soft" response would not have woken me up or created such a significant impression.
And just in case, no, I didn't let certain feelings of self-sabotage for what I did become more widespread than just noticing them. I took a better path of seeing my inappropriate action and what I should do to correct it without hesitation. It's enough for me ("it's not that big a deal," but I really wouldn't like to continue being so vulnerable and unserious about something so basic).
As I said, in my case I didn't even do my homework, and although you may have thought about it more or less unconsciously, you didn't close the debate as such either. You perhaps only wanted more seriousness and for the answers on this matter to show a truly thorough analysis, given that this is how it should be and it hadn't been like that either here or elsewhere.
Of course, and I partly related your answer to this. You're very dedicated to your commitment to this great place, and therefore you're very interested in protecting the forum environment and ensuring it doesn't degenerate. When you mentioned in the past that you'd discussed avoiding, as much as necessary, posts with very little analysis and just a bunch of tweets, I agreed, as did many others.
I see that the underlying idea is more than pointing out that this doesn't have its place in certain contexts; it was that it doesn't do us any good in terms of generally seeking the truth, developing critical thinking, and other faculties, and of course, it makes us vulnerable and weak. This isn't a place where people participate just to hang out, and it would be a huge shame to lose what we've built.
Of course, echoes of Youlik constantly come in here, complaining to some extent about "Iron Dimon." He's not the only one who's done so regarding Medvedev or other officials, or regarding other issues related to Russia (I've also noticed it when occasionally searching for information on Russian forums). Putin himself, without being perfect (although more than enough by far), complained about the parquet generals and has come a long way to improve the country. We've seen a string of lies during the SMO many times. There's no need to idealize Russia or say that the situation is catastrophic, to note that there are many mundane problems, some of them particular, as you've explained, due to the situation they find themselves in.
I won't continue with this and will return to the topic since you've explained it very well and the ramifications are easy to understand. Besides, the point was to point out why this issue regarding START III has possibly become so widespread. The day after I posted my first post on this topic, I browsed Russian forums and websites (like Topwar) to see what they were saying. I saw some division, but mostly people complaining about the incompetence of the military authorities, calling for revenge, feeling outraged by what happened, and pointing to Copium's explanations regarding the treaty being ambiguous or stating that the planes should be left exposed. In part, I simply think the issue became widespread due to careless readings and misinterpretations (and repeating what others said), which in turn combined with a superficial self-confirmation bias resulting from being dazzled by seeing the planes exposed without any apparent explanation to justify it.
This time, the issue became even more widespread, given that on social media, speed often prevails over analysis, and the situation was too shocking for many to think calmly without getting carried away. I said I understood your frustration because I saw a Spanish guy a few days later who I considered (and still consider to some extent) to be sufficiently well informed and rigorous in dealing with these issues (he is dedicated to debunking things about NAFOS and is generally at odds with them all) point out in X that there were many people who continued to tell him in the comments that this aspect of the treaty was not true. As I had occasionally spoken to him and had seen him readily admit when he was wrong on some point, I told him that I thought the same at first, but that after a more careful reading and in context, there was no such agreement in any of the treaties and that I would like someone to explain to me where it was implied that this was the case. People came to me with screenshots similar to the one I brought here to the forum; that the AI had confirmed it and that was the case. I told them that the title gave the context and that reading the treaty you could see that the exhibits referred to on-site reviews and therefore I pointed out that they shouldn't trust the AIs. I also said that START III was the one that had validity over the others and that Article X said that the bombers were exempt from being left in the open if desired.
They told me that I had an exaggerated ego to say that the AI was wrong and they also refused to read the article out of laziness; they had already "done their work" and had been kind enough to answer me and I was being obtuse and ungrateful. the guy himself came to tell me that I had swallowed all the Ukrainian Nazi propaganda from the NAFOs that the Russians were drunks who were spinning on the runway and that my problem was that I was taking some points too literally (by this point I realized that I had started to feel gaslighting and it caused me some grace to remember your words about this at that moment), after that I adjusted my language on purpose, although I had not been rude to anyone, I knew that I could not be so dry if I wanted to get something and I told him without lying that I did not care about the cheap NAFOS, that my request was sincere and that I only wanted to know the truth, that I understood that he was probably obfuscated, so I promised to be totally cooperative and open if he took the trouble to attend to my request ... I was completely prepared for him to come with something more substantial, but he only called me "poor thing", that the US had their B-2s parked outdoors on Diego Garcia because Putin ordered them to.
I told him it wasn't true, that the B-2s had their hangars at Withman Air Base (By the way, START I, which is where the controversy mainly arises, was signed in 1991, but there are photos from 1993 of the aforementioned base in which you can see all the B-2 hangars that are there today, already built at that time, so even that treaty is ruled out in the aspect of requiring that the planes be outdoors.) and that in Diego Garcia they had portable hangars despite being outdoors for certain periods of time as seen in certain photos as we have already seen.
Not receiving any more answers, I think that after your previous message you had decided that you were not going to dedicate any more time to me.
Finally I went to see what good old Simplicius had to say about this issue, he didn't buy into all this "controversy" at all, he made a minor mistake by pointing out that although the B-2s had hangars at Whitman, they didn't have them at Diego Garcia, he probably didn't notice this other type of hangars for some reason, but in general he stressed the now obvious fact that other types of bombers were not kept in hangars, including cheaper ones and in greater numbers like the B-52 for practical reasons due to their size, it's worth noting that part of his article included a video that he himself had published a week before the events of Operation Spiderweb in which Defense Minister Andrei Belousov was presented with a proposal for a hangar for a TU-160 in this case, so the idea of building them was still around.
Ukraine's 'Unprecedented' Operation Spiderweb: Russia's 'Pearl Harbor'? Or Just More Soggy Silk?
Ukraine has carried out a mass drone strike operation on Russian strategic bases, damaging and potentially destroying several Tu-95 strategic bombers as well as some additional Tu-22s and transport planes:
substack.com
So, well, in conclusion, there was nothing in the treaties, and this misconception is something that gained much more traction than it should have in recent times, partly due to the initial chaos and the AIs that emphatically affirmed it.
The whole issue of having the planes out in the open responded to practical reasons for resources, and the hangars weren't perceived as sufficiently necessary. After all, the Russians relied on their anti-drone and anti-aircraft defenses and on moving planes between bases to more distant locations (which worked well enough). Almost no one could foresee and be prepared for an operation in which drones would take off from trucks infiltrated deep inside the country and far from the battlefront. Many times in war, things happen that later seem obvious or resulted in some degree of catastrophe because certain vulnerabilities weren't properly covered.
PS: Curiously, Big Serge points out that both the Chinese and the Russians were experimenting some time ago with the same model and were criticized for the idea of using weapons camouflaged as civilian objects.
A couple of final candies:
"For unconditional ceasefire": Zelensky is demanding $40 billion annually from Western donors to prolong the conflict.
mantle
Jedi Master
Have you dealt with cockroaches ?
If their contract cannot perform what is their value ? Zero.
Zelenski performs on the incentive that he has become accustomed to and he bets on the outcome.
He is a parasite like any cockroach is
But he is also a loser. His American contract is finished. No more food for him . Not even crumbs.
The word is out .
He failed . Step on him.. He is done.
If their contract cannot perform what is their value ? Zero.
Zelenski performs on the incentive that he has become accustomed to and he bets on the outcome.
He is a parasite like any cockroach is
But he is also a loser. His American contract is finished. No more food for him . Not even crumbs.
The word is out .
He failed . Step on him.. He is done.
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
I think the idea of "sunk cost fallacy" also applies to Ukraine. I think the European countries and US financial institutions have invested so much money into the Ukrainian war machine that it basically means if Ukraine losses, all that money disappears to nothing. Money disappearing to nothing, especially when we are talking hundreds upon hundreds of billions is not something they will accept.
It basically means Russia cannot have the whole of Ukraine as there must be a means for the "investors" to get there money back. So Ukraine is a bit of a black hole, the more they try, the more money they invest, the more it makes it harder for them to walk away.
It basically means Russia cannot have the whole of Ukraine as there must be a means for the "investors" to get there money back. So Ukraine is a bit of a black hole, the more they try, the more money they invest, the more it makes it harder for them to walk away.
Zelensky has threatened to conduct more long-range strikes to target facilities deep inside Russia after he was invited just to attend a welcome dinner at NATO summit in Netherlands, to swallow dumplings.
Nević Nenad
The Living Force
And confirmation, of course.
Moscow accuses Belgrade of betraying friendship
Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service has accused Serbian defense firms of sending munitions to Ukraine
Nope. Still ongoing. Serbia's (rather small) military complex is owned by Vutchich and his family. He wont stop selling ammunition to Ukraine, because he personally is getting richer with that. The man is a psychopath and dont understand anything above the layer og money and getting rich.
From the article:
Also official statement from Maria Zakharova are getting harsher. Good thing is that Vutchich seems to not have Russia's support anymore.
The topic is kind of stuck. It must be revived.
I would like to express my gratitude for the kind words.
First, I'll give you a couple of messages from Russian opponents. It should be noted that Ukrops resources do not abandon the chosen method once and for all. They write about the fact that it is absolutely impossible not to see, but at the same time they do not forget to interweave their favorite agenda. In this case, the Deep State resource draws a sweet conclusion for the Ukrop audience about the lack of equipment in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. In fact, the limited participation of heavy equipment in assault operations is explained by its inefficiency due to the speed and ease of hitting it with modern means, in particular various drones. For the same reason, infantry assault operations take place in small, highly dispersed groups of literally 2-3-4 people.
And here is the news about Russian new developments in the field of drones.
I would like to express my gratitude for the kind words.
In general, it was understandable, but as the Russian proverb says: "a kind word is pleasant to a cat."
First, I'll give you a couple of messages from Russian opponents. It should be noted that Ukrops resources do not abandon the chosen method once and for all. They write about the fact that it is absolutely impossible not to see, but at the same time they do not forget to interweave their favorite agenda. In this case, the Deep State resource draws a sweet conclusion for the Ukrop audience about the lack of equipment in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. In fact, the limited participation of heavy equipment in assault operations is explained by its inefficiency due to the speed and ease of hitting it with modern means, in particular various drones. For the same reason, infantry assault operations take place in small, highly dispersed groups of literally 2-3-4 people.
And here is the news about Russian new developments in the field of drones.
Что то тема подвисла. Надо оживить.
Я хотел бы выразить благодарность за теплые слова.
В общем это было понятно и так, но как говорит русская пословица: "доброе слово и кошке приятно".
Сначала приведу пару сообщений от российских противников. Следует обратить внимание на то, что укропские ресурсы никак не отказываются от раз и навсегда выбранной методики. Они пишут о том, что уже совершенно никак нельзя не видеть, но при этом не забывают вплести свою любимую повестку. В данном случае ресурсом Deep State делается сладкий для укропской аудитории вывод о нехватке техники у ВС РФ. На самом деле ограниченное участие тяжелой техники в штурмовых действиях объясняется ее неэффективностью из-за быстроты и легкости поражения ее современными средствами, в частности различными дронами. По этой же причине пехотные штурмовые действия происходят малыми, сильно рассредоточенными группами буквально по 2-3-4 человека.
А вот новости про российские обновки в области дронов.
Я хотел бы выразить благодарность за теплые слова.
В общем это было понятно и так, но как говорит русская пословица: "доброе слово и кошке приятно".
Сначала приведу пару сообщений от российских противников. Следует обратить внимание на то, что укропские ресурсы никак не отказываются от раз и навсегда выбранной методики. Они пишут о том, что уже совершенно никак нельзя не видеть, но при этом не забывают вплести свою любимую повестку. В данном случае ресурсом Deep State делается сладкий для укропской аудитории вывод о нехватке техники у ВС РФ. На самом деле ограниченное участие тяжелой техники в штурмовых действиях объясняется ее неэффективностью из-за быстроты и легкости поражения ее современными средствами, в частности различными дронами. По этой же причине пехотные штурмовые действия происходят малыми, сильно рассредоточенными группами буквально по 2-3-4 человека.
А вот новости про российские обновки в области дронов.
lilies
The Living Force
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PROOF of PRESSURE WAVE BLAST INJURY FOR CIVILIANS DURING WAR
For soft human bodies:
Look at the video UNTIL videotime 03 minutes : 23 seconds
**
Then immediately stop the video rewind if you need to see that the windshield is OKAY and THEN look at the windshield from 03:24:
For soft human bodies:
Look at following video from Ukraine, especially check out the individual image frames:
Look at the video UNTIL videotime 03 minutes : 23 seconds
**
Then immediately stop the video rewind if you need to see that the windshield is OKAY and THEN look at the windshield from 03:24:
