Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Melissa Rivera5 said:Kids are out here singing about how even if peace is an option, they’ll head into one last battle—basically suicide—if Uncle Vova calls them up. It feels like he's literally raising a generation of kids to be suicidal while sending these barely grown boys straight into a meat grinder. And then you have the Russophiles acting like Russia is some kind of moral giant.

It's pretty grim, honestly. He's basically just mimicking jihadists at this point. It probably isn't even surprising that some Chechen guy was talking about defending Islam a few days ago, claiming they'd march all the way to Berlin or wherever, all while fighting for Russia.

Maybe Putin is secretly a radical Muslim under the surface.😵

Gregory Ramos3 said:I think you're totally missing the point here.

You don't just go dropping an atomic bomb on the very territory you're trying to liberate or annex (I mean, if you have even a shred of sanity, you aren't dropping anything at all, right? 🙂).

Even if the blast is weak enough that the radiation dissipates quickly, how exactly do you think the locals are going to look at you when you come charging in with a big ol' smile amidst the ruins? 🤷

The whole thing about being able to live normally in h & n seventy years later doesn't really change my argument, and besides, nobody ever claimed that radiation levels wouldn't eventually normalize over time—even if that normalization takes years or decades to actually happen. 🤷

Look at what happened with the Japanese. It worked out great. They were thoroughly Americanized and embraced all our democratic Western values. Why couldn't that same logic be applied elsewhere?

Just thinking out loud...

Terry Green3 said:We could compare this to the 21st century too, though I don't share your optimistic faith in human willpower. For instance...

The media went into a frenzy condemning reports that during the opening hours of the invasion, Russ tried to pull off an assassination or kidnapping of Zelenskyy via helicopter assault. Everyone painted them as the ultimate villains.
Fast forward to the first day of the invasion of Afghanistan: American cruise missiles hit the house of the equivalent of Zelenskyy—the leader of Afghanistan. He managed to save his own skin.
The difference? In that strike, the Americans managed to kill Omar Mula's ten-year-old son.
Same tactics used by great powers....

That's why I don't see why the Russians wouldn't be just as "inhumane" as the Americans and deploy their full arsenal if they felt backed into a corner.
Especially since neither the Americans nor the Russians have signed any international agreement banning the use of such weapons. And it’s a safe bet nobody would hesitate to strike Russia just because they struck Ukraine.
There would certainly be condemnation. Probably more directed at Russia than the USA for what happened there.

You can draw a direct line between this failed attempt on Zelenskyy where no one died, and the American action where a ten-year-old child was killed....
Morality doesn't really exist in this world. No point in being surprised or thinking certain things are impossible.

More whataboutism (or rather, whatever-ism).
I fail to see the point of your message.
Are you suggesting that Russians attempting to liquidate the leader of a sovereign nation isn't inherently wrong just because the Americans do it too?

If I follow your logic—what about the Romans and the Phoenicians?
Or the aggressive expansionism of ancient Australian tribes?

Timothy Williams5 said:More whataboutism (or rather, whatever-ism).
I fail to see the point of your message.
Are you suggesting that Russians attempting to liquidate the leader of a sovereign nation isn't inherently wrong just because the Americans do it too?

If I follow your logic—what about the Romans and the Phoenicians?
Or the aggressive expansionism of ancient Australian tribes?

You're trivializing this. By that logic, everyone is evil just because they fight wars and kill people. The Russians, the Americans, the Britons—they're all at the top of the list.
Should we just disband every army, hold hands, and sing "WE ara The children of The World"?
My point is simple: there isn't a single valid reason why anyone would rule out the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, and I won't be mocked for pointing that out.
It’s not whataboutism; it’s an argued critique.

Terry Green3 said:Look at what happened with the Japanese. It worked out great. They were thoroughly Americanized and embraced all our democratic Western values. Why couldn't that same logic be applied elsewhere?

Just thinking out loud...

Alright, enough trolling from you, man; I’ve got way better things to do than get dragged into some mindless argument that’s totally off-topic.👋

Honestly, I'm just getting so exhausted with all this "Wotabout" nonsense, especially when half of these things happened before even some of us on this forum were born, so I'm thinking the next person to try it is just going to hit an ignore button. Experience tells me that trying to explain anything to people like that is a total waste of breath, so hey, enjoy living in your little bubble while I go get back to my actual life.☕

Terry Green3 said:You're trivializing this. By that logic, everyone is evil just because they fight wars and kill people. The Russians, the Americans, the Britons—they're all at the top of the list.
Should we just disband every army, hold hands, and sing "WE ara The children of The World"?
My point is simple: there isn't a single valid reason why anyone would rule out the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, and I won't be mocked for pointing that out.
It’s not whataboutism; it’s an argued critique.

I'm losing my will to engage.
True whataboutism is when you try to deflect from Russian aggression by drawing parallels to the failures of Americans in Afghanistan.
By making that move, you're essentially downplaying the Russian actions by implying that since everyone does it, it doesn't really matter.
And unfortunately, you aren't the only one who uses that tactic.

Something a bit somber and different today.
Let's shift the focus toward the Russians regarding this whole business of their aggression against a sovereign nation.

Specifically, how Russian bloggers are processing the sight of their own equipment being dismantled on Ukrainian soil.

Rus Roman Saponkov claims he personally witnessed a HIMARS strike that left a lasting impression on him. He shared his reflections on his Telegram channel, which has over 25k followers. You can find the source here.

I watched the HIMARS strike on Chernobayevka, near Kherson, almost with my own eyes yesterday. I've been under shelling plenty of times, but what struck me was how that entire salvo—maybe five or six rockets—hit almost the exact same spot. Usually, when an MLRS fires, the rounds spread out over a wide area, especially at longer ranges, fanning out like a deck of cards. It’s an impressive thing to see, there's no debating that. Especially since later that day, while we were out on a trip, we saw the aftermath of a hurricane-like blast about 500 meters from where we were. That one had scattered across a massive area, leaving unexploded rockets stuck in the fields. Compared to that, the Americans (HIMARS) don't even look messy. Later, the area was hit by artillery, but those missed too. If it had been HIMARS, the whole thing would have been leveled on the first pass. So, this tech works.

I'm seeing a certain kind of unhealthy panic rippling through social media following the results of these initial strikes. Clearly, this is just the beginning. They're going to hit Kherson and other border cities, including Belgorod. They'll target every single point and military installation that intelligence has been gathering data on over the last four months. Still, I assume there will be counter-measures, such as constant aerial surveillance (Russian AWACS); hopefully, they manage to spot something.
There is no such thing as a "wonder weapon" that guarantees victory in a war. For instance, try recalling all the hype surrounding that supposed electronic warfare tool that, if you believed our media, was supposed to shut down every USS Donald Cook system in the Black Sea and leave American sailors shaking in their boots. In reality, things turned out quite differently.

https://wartranslated.com/russian-bl...ssile-strikes/

... and also:

The fairly influential Russian commentator Dmitriyev (who commands over 100k followers on Telegram) is weighing in on why the proposed solutions to counter Ukrainian missile strikes are essentially useless. His core argument is that the "decentralization" required by distributing ammunition runs directly contrary to the very nature of the Russian military and government structure.

You can find the source here.

A few more thoughts regarding the effectiveness of those Ukrainian missile strikes. There is a lot of chatter lately about how to minimize the damage from them. Beyond just beefing up air defenses, people are suggesting things like dispersing ammunition depots, avoiding clustering armored vehicles at a single base, making sure helicopters aren't lined up in neat rows, and generally embracing decentralization across the board. But here is the fundamental issue—you can certainly decentralize, but if you do, you end up with an entirely different kind of force, one that bears no resemblance to a Russian or Soviet-style military. Decentralization isn't just a tactical shift; it fundamentally clashes with the architecture of both the military hierarchy and the state apparatus itself. Furthermore, if you actually distribute ammo into various stockpiles and move vehicles into scattered forest locations, you would logically have to push decision-making authority down to those specific forests and depots. However, for centuries, that power has been meticulously concentrated in a single central point. That concentration is exactly how authority is preserved. To suggest decentralization in this context is to suggest something far more destabilizing than mere military losses.

Timothy Williams5 said:... and also:

The fairly influential Russian commentator Dmitriyev (who commands over 100k followers on Telegram) is weighing in on why the proposed solutions to counter Ukrainian missile strikes are essentially useless. His core argument is that the "decentralization" required by distributing ammunition runs directly contrary to the very nature of the Russian military and government structure.

You can find the source here.

A few more thoughts regarding the effectiveness of those Ukrainian missile strikes. There is a lot of chatter lately about how to minimize the damage from them. Beyond just beefing up air defenses, people are suggesting things like dispersing ammunition depots, avoiding clustering armored vehicles at a single base, making sure helicopters aren't lined up in neat rows, and generally embracing decentralization across the board. But here is the fundamental issue—you can certainly decentralize, but if you do, you end up with an entirely different kind of force, one that bears no resemblance to a Russian or Soviet-style military. Decentralization isn't just a tactical shift; it fundamentally clashes with the architecture of both the military hierarchy and the state apparatus itself. Furthermore, if you actually distribute ammo into various stockpiles and move vehicles into scattered forest locations, you would logically have to push decision-making authority down to those specific forests and depots. However, for centuries, that power has been meticulously concentrated in a single central point. That concentration is exactly how authority is preserved. To suggest decentralization in this context is to suggest something far more destabilizing than mere military losses.

"But here’s where the real issue lies—you can certainly opt for decentralization, but you’d end up with an entirely different kind of military force, nothing like the old Russian-Soviet model. Decentralization fundamentally clashes with the core structure of not just a military, but of a centralized state government as a whole."

That is an undeniable truth...

Just to put things in perspective:

"The true quality of a German officer during World War II was found in the fact that they weren't just capable of leading their own squad, but could actually offer valuable insight regarding the positioning of a platoon or even a company. A detachment leader must be able to command their unit and use their weapons effectively, sure, but that's just the baseline. They have to be able to lead at the platoon level, possessing the capacity to think strategically within a company..."

Jacob Price95 said:The Taliban and various Islamist groups of all stripes are essentially the textbook definition of how to run a partisan insurgency. If this war keeps up at this pace, there won't be many Ukrainians left; most will end up as refugees. Those who don't care will stay behind, while those who want out will head straight for Western countries or Western Europe.

You mean they launch a massive counteroffensive with a "million" soldiers, lose them all, and then let the Russians just stroll right into Lviv... roughly speaking.

Honestly, your prediction sounds exactly like that one "Dane" on this forum who swore up and down that at least 15 million refugees would be fleeing to the West within a month...

Sergey Lavrov claims to be preoccupied with civilian welfare, yet the West continues to pressure Kyiv into accepting an endless stream of HIMARS and other weaponry.

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/s...cGr1AIksw&s=19

Gregory Ramos3 said:If things are going to go down, why is everyone freaking out and losing their minds so much over Nukes?😬

But hey, you actually made me wonder—does anyone know what finally happened to those Russians from the Chernobyl Forest? The last thing I caught in the news was that they were starting to show signs of radiation sickness, but then the whole story just kind of vanished from the media. 🤔

From what I recall, if my memory serves me right, I heard on some Italian news that they were transferred to Belarus to be treated at a military hospital.
I haven't heard anything since then. 🕺

Sergey Lavrov is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff; using him as a narrative for domestic consumption is a total disaster.

Timothy Williams5 said:... and also:

The fairly influential Russian commentator Dmitriyev (who commands over 100k followers on Telegram) is weighing in on why the proposed solutions to counter Ukrainian missile strikes are essentially useless. His core argument is that the "decentralization" required by distributing ammunition runs directly contrary to the very nature of the Russian military and government structure.

You can find the source here.

A few more thoughts regarding the effectiveness of those Ukrainian missile strikes. There is a lot of chatter lately about how to minimize the damage from them. Beyond just beefing up air defenses, people are suggesting things like dispersing ammunition depots, avoiding clustering armored vehicles at a single base, making sure helicopters aren't lined up in neat rows, and generally embracing decentralization across the board. But here is the fundamental issue—you can certainly decentralize, but if you do, you end up with an entirely different kind of force, one that bears no resemblance to a Russian or Soviet-style military. Decentralization isn't just a tactical shift; it fundamentally clashes with the architecture of both the military hierarchy and the state apparatus itself. Furthermore, if you actually distribute ammo into various stockpiles and move vehicles into scattered forest locations, you would logically have to push decision-making authority down to those specific forests and depots. However, for centuries, that power has been meticulously concentrated in a single central point. That concentration is exactly how authority is preserved. To suggest decentralization in this context is to suggest something far more destabilizing than mere military losses.

Well, here we go... what was quoted is spot on. 🙂

Arthur Miller7 said:Honestly, your prediction sounds exactly like that one "Dane" on this forum who swore up and down that at least 15 million refugees would be fleeing to the West within a month...

Man, someone needs to get you some better hobbies because you are clearly living in a total fantasy land 😬

But while you're daydreaming, here is what's actually happening in the real world:

The number of Ukrainians entering European Union countries has returned to pre-war levels—basically where things stood before the Russian invasion started—and we expect to see even more people moving back and forth before the next school year kicks off, according to the European Commissioner for Home Affairs this past Monday.

Following the Russian invasion back in February, over six million people fled Ukraine to find safety within the European Union, according to reports from Customs and Border Protection at the end of June.

As of today, 3.1 million of them have already headed back home.

"Regarding the refugee influx, the situation has stabilized now. The number of crossings from Ukraine into the European Union is back to pre-war figures, sitting right at those pre-pandemic COVID levels, so we are seeing a return to normal, standard numbers of people crossing," said Commissioner Ylva Johansson.

According to her, the number of Ukrainians entering the European Union is almost identical to the number heading back home.

Link: scroll down further

☕

Arthur Miller7 said:Honestly, your prediction sounds exactly like that one "Dane" on this forum who swore up and down that at least 15 million refugees would be fleeing to the West within a month...

That "Dane" fellow from Kozara vanished into thin air right when the Russians started pulling back from the outskirts of Kyiv.
It’s clear his entire worldview crumbled once he realized he was wrong!

Anthony Hill5 said:Sergey Lavrov claims to be preoccupied with civilian welfare, yet the West continues to pressure Kyiv into accepting an endless stream of HIMARS and other weaponry.

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/s...cGr1AIksw&s=19

The worst part? I hear this exact same line on almost every pro-Russian news outlet across Europe. It's become a tired mantra in the neighborhood. They pin everything on the West, acting like if we just stopped arming Ukrainians, the war would magically vanish and everyone could go back to living in some blissful, wealthy utopia forever. Pure fantasy.🤦

Precisely. If the Ukrainians just stopped resisting, this whole war would be over in a heartbeat. Simple as that.
The Russians just provide GPS coordinates for everything that belongs to them... and that's the end of the story.

But the Ukrainians have a different strategy for their own territory... and they have their own GPS coordinates, all located within their own borders.🙂

Unbelievable? Or perhaps...

dustytiger8 said:Precisely. If the Ukrainians just stopped resisting, this whole war would be over in a heartbeat. Simple as that.
The Russians just provide GPS coordinates for everything that belongs to them... and that's the end of the story.

But the Ukrainians have a different strategy for their own territory... and they have their own GPS coordinates, all located within their own borders.🙂

Unbelievable? Or perhaps...

Which is exactly why Lavrov was sitting through evening school

My Uncle Krokanić (Đuro Utješanović) from Pervanov’s evening school—the man who actually knows where the blame lies. “The one defending themselves is the one at fault. If they didn't defend themselves, there wouldn't be a war,” my uncle explains.

dustytiger8 said:Precisely. If the Ukrainians just stopped resisting, this whole war would be over in a heartbeat. Simple as that.
The Russians just provide GPS coordinates for everything that belongs to them... and that's the end of the story.

But the Ukrainians have a different strategy for their own territory... and they have their own GPS coordinates, all located within their own borders.🙂

Unbelievable? Or perhaps...

It’s better for everyone if they sit down at the negotiating table. Western sponsors don't see any issue with draining Russia dry; they don't care if all of Ukraine burns if necessary. If they manage to mobilize a million soldiers and reclaim the south, they'll likely push toward Crimea since negotiations won't be on their minds. If nobody stops them, we're looking at a nuclear scenario.

Jose Clark2 said:It’s better for everyone if they sit down at the negotiating table. Western sponsors don't see any issue with draining Russia dry; they don't care if all of Ukraine burns if necessary. If they manage to mobilize a million soldiers and reclaim the south, they'll likely push toward Crimea since negotiations won't be on their minds. If nobody stops them, we're looking at a nuclear scenario.

The Russians could literally just stop right now by calling off the military operations and pulling back from their territory. It’s something that could happen basically this second, where every single unit is totally out of Ukraine by midnight tomorrow.