CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › War in Ukraine › Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Started by Charles Ross3 · · 👁 506 views · 9.2K replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Charles Ross3rowdytiger13electrichawk94nimblemoose2Noah Ward2George Robinson43Larry Wilson25Larry Walker24Amanda Allen4Noah Sanchez2Paul Thomas46Jessica Peterson2Nancy Gomez26Nathan Evans78William Anderson5electricsurfer47gentlestag15wiredseal7Thomas Nelson25Donna Harris11Nicholas WatsonJack Kelly5Carol Johnson21Kate Cook27 …
Justin Mendoza16 Justin Mendoza16 Active Member
118 messages
joined Jan 2023
#2941 ·
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense says that by Tuesday, Ukrainian

forces have taken out about 38,550 Russian soldiers (plus triple that in wounded), wrecked 220 combat, assault, and transport planes, 188 assault and transport helicopters, 1,691 tanks, 851 artillery pieces, 3,892 armored vehicles, 248 MLRS, 15 boats, 2,767 fuel and ammo trucks, 113 anti-aircraft batteries, 693 tactical drones, 70 special equipment platforms, four mobile ATACMS launchers, and 167 cruise missiles shot down by Ukrainian air defenses.

So yeah, it's super obvious the Russian army is still taking massive hits in Ukraine. They're running out of people, and if Vladimir Putin doesn't call for a full mobilization, they’re gonna have a brutal summer ahead. Throwing together random volunteer units or relying on mercenaries from private companies might work for a bit, but it's definitely not a long-term fix, according to 19fortyfive.

Another move—which The White House will probably see coming—is ramping up mobilization among ethnic minorities.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) says in their latest report that this could spark major backlash in ethnic enclaves within Russia.

"We've seen troops from Chechnya, South Ossetia, Tuva, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Chuvashia dominating the battlefield already. This suggests Putin isn't willing to go for a general mobilization, mostly because he doesn't want to start drafting too many ethnic Russians," the ISW noted.
wiredtiger8 wiredtiger8 Active Member
81 messages
joined Jul 2019
#2942 ·
Justin Mendoza16 said:The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense says that by Tuesday, Ukrainian

forces have taken out about 38,550 Russian soldiers (plus triple that in wounded), wrecked 220 combat, assault, and transport planes, 188 assault and transport helicopters, 1,691 tanks, 851 artillery pieces, 3,892 armored vehicles, 248 MLRS, 15 boats, 2,767 fuel and ammo trucks, 113 anti-aircraft batteries, 693 tactical drones, 70 special equipment platforms, four mobile ATACMS launchers, and 167 cruise missiles shot down by Ukrainian air defenses.

So yeah, it's super obvious the Russian army is still taking massive hits in Ukraine. They're running out of people, and if Vladimir Putin doesn't call for a full mobilization, they’re gonna have a brutal summer ahead. Throwing together random volunteer units or relying on mercenaries from private companies might work for a bit, but it's definitely not a long-term fix, according to 19fortyfive.

Another move—which The White House will probably see coming—is ramping up mobilization among ethnic minorities.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) says in their latest report that this could spark major backlash in ethnic enclaves within Russia.

"We've seen troops from Chechnya, South Ossetia, Tuva, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Chuvashia dominating the battlefield already. This suggests Putin isn't willing to go for a general mobilization, mostly because he doesn't want to start drafting too many ethnic Russians," the ISW noted.

And let's be real, the Ukrainians are also exaggerating a bit with these fuzzy numbers.

Look, it's clear the Russians are taking huge losses, but...

William Burns (head of the CIA) said yesterday that the Russians have about 15,000 dead, and that the Ukrainians also have "significant losses" (that's how he put it).
Now, if you apply even a shred of common sense and logic here, I'd say the CIA might be inflating Russian losses just a touch while downplaying Ukrainian ones (which are definitely significant, mind you)...

Personally, I’d love to see some actual data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense regarding their own human losses. I mean, they should have those numbers, right? But they aren't publishing them—they're guarding them like state secrets... all we know is that they are "significant." (allegedly, according to the CIA).
Melissa Gray2 Melissa Gray2 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jul 2022
#2943 ·
Amanda Allen4 said:Why on earth would the older generation "naturally long for the days of the Soviet Union"?

My entire logic was that the USSR wasn't even a functional state to begin with, and nobody actually wanted to defend it—which is precisely why it collapsed. Nobody had to launch a military invasion against the USSR to bring it down.

It’s because communism is viewed as some kind of lost paradise, systematically dismantled by globalists. You can see it today—every single communist party has been effectively banned; there isn't a single one left on the ballot that actually campaigns against private property...
dustyfalcon122 dustyfalcon122 Active Member
84 messages
joined Feb 2022
#2944 ·
wiredtiger8 said:And let's be real, the Ukrainians are also exaggerating a bit with these fuzzy numbers.

Look, it's clear the Russians are taking huge losses, but...

William Burns (head of the CIA) said yesterday that the Russians have about 15,000 dead, and that the Ukrainians also have "significant losses" (that's how he put it).
Now, if you apply even a shred of common sense and logic here, I'd say the CIA might be inflating Russian losses just a touch while downplaying Ukrainian ones (which are definitely significant, mind you)...

Personally, I’d love to see some actual data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense regarding their own human losses. I mean, they should have those numbers, right? But they aren't publishing them—they're guarding them like state secrets... all we know is that they are "significant." (allegedly, according to the CIA).

Actually, I think it's the exact opposite. The CIA learned their lesson long ago; they aren't going to throw out numbers they can't stand behind just to be reckless. They're aiming for the absolute truth, or at least as close as possible, especially on details that aren't even that critical. They definitely won't be lying at this stage.
That CIA number might actually just be the bare minimum, though I honestly have no idea how they even calculate casualty estimates when the war is mostly driven by artillery. Maybe through spies?
rowdytiger13 rowdytiger13 Regular
378 messages
joined Oct 2018
#2945 ·
Melissa Gray2 said:It’s because communism is viewed as some kind of lost paradise, systematically dismantled by globalists. You can see it today—every single communist party has been effectively banned; there isn't a single one left on the ballot that actually campaigns against private property...

That's because communism is an absolute utopia that can only function within tiny, isolated communes, mostly because it just doesn't mesh with human nature.
A person would essentially have to undergo some massive psychological evolution to reach a state of consciousness where they're willing to work themselves to the bone just to have the exact same resources as someone less capable or less intelligent—even though everyone would technically have enough.
For most high achievers, that concept is just fundamentally unfair.
Melissa Gray2 Melissa Gray2 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jul 2022
#2946 ·
rowdytiger13 said:That's because communism is an absolute utopia that can only function within tiny, isolated communes, mostly because it just doesn't mesh with human nature.
A person would essentially have to undergo some massive psychological evolution to reach a state of consciousness where they're willing to work themselves to the bone just to have the exact same resources as someone less capable or less intelligent—even though everyone would technically have enough.
For most high achievers, that concept is just fundamentally unfair.

Sure, but by that logic, capitalism isn't compatible with human nature either—it wrecks the environment through hyperproduction—so I guess we should just go back to feudalism? That's why the feudal system lasted for a thousand years, it made sense at the time...
dustyfalcon122 said:Actually, I think it's the exact opposite. The CIA learned their lesson long ago; they aren't going to throw out numbers they can't stand behind just to be reckless. They're aiming for the absolute truth, or at least as close as possible, especially on details that aren't even that critical. They definitely won't be lying at this stage.
That CIA number might actually just be the bare minimum, though I honestly have no idea how they even calculate casualty estimates when the war is mostly driven by artillery. Maybe through spies?

The CIA usually gives you the ceiling, not the floor; they aren't going to intentionally lowball the numbers. And that total includes the forces from the Donbas and Luhansk regions, which is where most of the casualties are coming from...
Justin Mendoza16 Justin Mendoza16 Active Member
118 messages
joined Jan 2023
#2947 ·
Melissa Gray2 said:It’s because communism is viewed as some kind of lost paradise, systematically dismantled by globalists. You can see it today—every single communist party has been effectively banned; there isn't a single one left on the ballot that actually campaigns against private property...

☕Nah, you're wrong. Just look at Cuba or SJ.Core. You go there, you live that communist life, and you raise your family in total prosperity...

Those dictatorships are just absolutely bursting with democracy...🤣
wiredtiger8 wiredtiger8 Active Member
81 messages
joined Jul 2019
#2948 ·
dustyfalcon122 said:Actually, I think it's the exact opposite. The CIA learned their lesson long ago; they aren't going to throw out numbers they can't stand behind just to be reckless. They're aiming for the absolute truth, or at least as close as possible, especially on details that aren't even that critical. They definitely won't be lying at this stage.
That CIA number might actually just be the bare minimum, though I honestly have no idea how they even calculate casualty estimates when the war is mostly driven by artillery. Maybe through spies?

Hmm, putting the CIA and "absolute truth" in the same sentence—especially regarding stuff being fed to the public... yeah, okay. Maybe the number is right, maybe it isn't.
Personally, I find those numbers way more credible than the ones we hear being pumped out by Ukrainians every single day.

Though, I don't really see how the CIA would "risk their heads" over these figures... whether they're being massaged more or less than usual.

EDIT: It makes zero sense to me that the CIA would try to downplay Russian losses. That kind of "marketing" is clearly intended for the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Timothy Williams5 Timothy Williams5 Regular
325 messages
joined Jun 2022
#2949 ·
An interesting piece from a Russian commentator, being circulated by that pro-Russian (yet Ukrainian) politician, Dimitriyev.

Another depressing bit of propaganda for the Russ has surfaced, courtesy of Dimitriyev—that former Ukrainian politician who flipped his allegiances and has been living in Russia since 2014. He’s originally from New York City, but these days he’s firmly planted on the other side.
Let’s be clear about this: he didn't actually write the post himself. He just gave it a boost by sharing it on his Telegram channel. The original author is some relatively obscure Russian commentator, though I have to admit, the guy actually produced something worth watching.

The last few months have been a period defined by some rather startling revelations from certain pro-Russian factions within our own borders, and this particular message is no exception. It appears they are finally beginning to grasp a singular, inescapable truth, which is that Russia wouldn't have felt the need to launch an invasion or attack anyone if they had actually been capable of offering irresistible value to their neighbors.But more importantly, she also failed in the socio-economic theater because what we’re looking at isn't a functioning nation—it's just a hollow facade, a curated image meant to project the illusion of a "real" Russia.

Quote:
Humanity has understood a fundamental truth for quite some time now: if you want to be respected, if you want your perspective to carry any weight at all, or if you simply want to matter, you have to represent something cohesive.
Recent events over the last few days, combined with the endless stream of daily conversations I find myself in, have forced me to reflect on those who express sympathy for Russia. It seems that any affinity for their cause inevitably translates into an endorsement of the Russian Federation itself; there is simply no other logical endpoint. To suggest an alternative is to propose something far more terrifying for the current Russian state, though we aren't quite ready to tackle that particular subject just yet.

A discussion about soft power has been circulating online lately, and the conclusions drawn were rather grim. The consensus seems to be that the Russian Federation is essentially weaponizing its own national image to serve purely selfish interests. What we are looking at is a massive, carefully constructed socio-economic simulation of Russia. In reality, the idea of "Russia" serves as nothing more than a convenient mask worn by a feudalistic, corporate-driven regime. While this manufactured image holds up well enough for domestic consumers who are fed this specific narrative, it has become a profound liability on the global stage. For everyone else—other nations and their citizens—this facade has created a distorted perception that makes it nearly impossible to accurately gauge the true intentions and actions of the Russian Federation.

Russia is an image that the Russian Federation employs with staggering ineptitude. The effectiveness of the "Novopians"—those proponents of the so-called "New Historical Community," a fraudulent Soviet construct designed to blend distinct nationalities into one monolithic mass—as agents of Russian imperialism is nothing short of disastrously negative. They offer no benefit to anyone, least of all the very populations they seek to control. Their fate is as bleak as it is inevitable.

There is absolutely no reason to feel any sympathy for the younger generation. They are quite simply fools who have failed to grasp even the most basic truths after thirty years of trying. It isn't that they are losers—it’s more accurate to say they suffer from a genuine intellectual handicap. Or perhaps, looking at it from a different angle, they are actually quite cunning, executing some sort of "complex maneuver" specifically designed to wipe our nation and our people off the political map of Europe. Which is the better scenario? I suppose that depends on how you view the world.
The author here draws a sharp line between ethnic Russians and the general citizens of the Russian Federation. That specific term—"Rossiyane"—is used extensively within modern Russia today as a way to effectively "replace" the identity of the actual ethnic population. From the author’s perspective, the modern Russian Federation, with its rather imaginative brand of imperialism, is merely a simulation of a "true" Russia that was systematically dismantled during the Soviet era. Because this simulation functions much like a massive corporation, driven by a clearly defined ruling elite, it remains largely ineffective.

I can't help but feel a certain level of pity for the average person caught up in this mess. What is it that actually drives them? It seems to be this irrational, almost primal, emotional bond with Russia. They hold onto this idealized version of the motherland, yet Russia doesn't care about them—because what they truly serve isn't a nation, but the Russian Federation. It’s tragic to watch those who stepped up to fight against the enemies of Russia, only to be stabbed in the back by the state itself. I feel for the ones who gave everything and never lived to see justice served. A tremendous amount of water has flowed under the bridge since 2014; millions of Russians have been sold out, and we once believed that this was our chance to get it right. But it turns out that wasn't the case; instead, we've just faced an even more profound, global disappointment.

Back in 2014, Russia didn't fully commit to invading Ukraine because they were busy playing along with certain diplomatic handshakes, and that hesitation proved fatal for the people in the Donbas and Kharkiv. In those areas, people were being targeted with weaponry without a second thought, while in Kharkiv, folks were essentially being liquidated in FBI-style basement interrogations. Other regions had it a bit better, at least in terms of transparency, but there were no illusions about the cruelty involved. This year, they pushed into three specific areas—the outskirts of New York City, and up toward the northern borders—only to retreat a month later because of some fresh set of backroom deals, acting as if the previous agreements had been honored by anyone other than Russia itself. It makes you wonder just how many people who harbored sympathies for Russia have perished through all of this, simply because they surrendered to an irrational, deep-seated sense of loyalty to a nation that doesn't care for them.

...
What we’re seeing here is a fundamental flaw shared by many Americans who seem incapable of perceiving the world outside of imperialist frameworks, whether they're looking through the lens of the old Empire or the modern Russian Federation. They can only view Ukraine as a piece of property to be owned, utterly unable to evolve past historical delusions, despite having clearly realized what a deceptive trap the Russian Federation has become for those who actually identify as "Russians."

I recently came across footage of some old-school traditionalists who relocated to the Russian Federation, coming from places like Latin America. Why did they make the move? Was it to be crushed by a soul-sucking bureaucracy, stripped of any remaining illusions regarding the difference between the country they left and the one they arrived in? They clung to a familiar image, abandoning their entire lives to settle here, and for what?

Generally speaking, there is a profound sense of pity for anyone who sacrificed everything for Russia only to find themselves staring at the grim reality of the Russian Federation, either discarded due to shady political maneuvering or left completely disillusioned. This stems from the fact that the Russian Federation possesses no inherent substance. Why should it? It functions essentially as a neo-feudal corporation. People are only just beginning to grasp this, though the signs have been there for a long time. Once the realization truly sets in, the Russian Federation won't be able to continue riding the momentum of that dying breed of sacrificial Russian passion, even as various figures like Selivanov, Strelkov, Zhilin, Zakharchenko, and Mozgov emerge—those supposed "heroes" of the 2014 era.
No, that isn't going to happen. When that momentum fails, the System will grind to a complete halt, and a total nightmare will begin.

The author concludes that this "special operation" was supposed to offer these true "Russians" one last chance to right the wrongs of history, but once again, the Russian Federation failed. They didn't go all-in on the invasion of Ukraine back in 2014, and now they've failed to achieve the very objective they promised their domestic audience: subjugating Ukraine and outmaneuvering the rest of the world. They failed because the state is fundamentally incapable of producing anything of value for anyone other than its own owners. Meanwhile, the rest of the world—and specifically Americans in the context of this conflict—become the innocent victims of the terrible misunderstanding that is modern Russia.

https://wartranslated.com/russian-bl...iled-us-again/
dustyfalcon122 dustyfalcon122 Active Member
84 messages
joined Feb 2022
#2950 ·
wiredtiger8 said:Hmm, putting the CIA and "absolute truth" in the same sentence—especially regarding stuff being fed to the public... yeah, okay. Maybe the number is right, maybe it isn't.
Personally, I find those numbers way more credible than the ones we hear being pumped out by Ukrainians every single day.

Though, I don't really see how the CIA would "risk their heads" over these figures... whether they're being massaged more or less than usual.

EDIT: It makes zero sense to me that the CIA would try to downplay Russian losses. That kind of "marketing" is clearly intended for the Russian Ministry of Defense.

It's because every public statement becomes part of the historical record forever.
If they get caught in a trivial lie like this, their credibility just takes a hit.
For now, regarding this specific crisis, they actually have great credibility since they accurately called out the Russian invasion plan. Sure, historically they've been caught lying plenty of times, but it looks like they learned something from that.
Arthur Watson4 Arthur Watson4 Active Member
135 messages
joined Feb 2022
#2951 ·
wiredtiger8 said:And let's be real, the Ukrainians are also exaggerating a bit with these fuzzy numbers.

Look, it's clear the Russians are taking huge losses, but...

William Burns (head of the CIA) said yesterday that the Russians have about 15,000 dead, and that the Ukrainians also have "significant losses" (that's how he put it).
Now, if you apply even a shred of common sense and logic here, I'd say the CIA might be inflating Russian losses just a touch while downplaying Ukrainian ones (which are definitely significant, mind you)...

Personally, I’d love to see some actual data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense regarding their own human losses. I mean, they should have those numbers, right? But they aren't publishing them—they're guarding them like state secrets... all we know is that they are "significant." (allegedly, according to the CIA).

In Russia, as of July 15th, they had recorded roughly 4,760 soldier burials specifically related to the conflict in Ukraine—meaning documented individual cases.

I believe the DNR announced back in May that they had around 2,600 dead and about 8,000 wounded.

As for the LNR, I don't think they released anything.

So, when you factor in the ones that will never be found or those buried in Russia without being reported in the news, I’d say current estimates are actually pretty reasonable, maybe even a bit conservative.

And honestly, it makes total sense why foreign nations wouldn't publish their own casualty counts.

EDIT: Of course, neither side is counting people like Wagner Group members in these totals.
gentlestag15 gentlestag15 Regular
280 messages
joined May 2024
#2952 ·
Arthur Watson4 said:In Russia, as of July 15th, they had recorded roughly 4,760 soldier burials specifically related to the conflict in Ukraine—meaning documented individual cases.

I believe the DNR announced back in May that they had around 2,600 dead and about 8,000 wounded.

As for the LNR, I don't think they released anything.

So, when you factor in the ones that will never be found or those buried in Russia without being reported in the news, I’d say current estimates are actually pretty reasonable, maybe even a bit conservative.

And honestly, it makes total sense why foreign nations wouldn't publish their own casualty counts.

EDIT: Of course, neither side is counting people like Wagner Group members in these totals.

https://twitter.com/KilledInUkraine
this guy tracks fallen Russian officers by pulling names from Russian social media and local news outlets.
so far, he’s identified exactly 900 dead officers.
Sandra Harris2 Sandra Harris2 Active Member
125 messages
joined Feb 2010
#2953 ·
Timothy Williams5 said:The specter of pro-Russian pacifism is haunting the halls of power in Italy, raising serious questions about who is actually pulling the strings behind Mary Draghi’s administration. It isn't just a matter of policy shifts; it feels more like a slow-motion internal struggle for the very soul of the government. You have to wonder how much longer a leadership focused on stability can withstand the pressure from factions that seem increasingly sympathetic to Moscow's agenda. It’s a delicate balancing act, and right now, the cracks in the coalition are becoming impossible to ignore.
The man they call Super Mario, who’s been standing firmly behind Ukraine, has suddenly found himself caught in the crosshairs of both right-wingers claiming to be Putin's friends and the leftists who seem more interested in begging for peace than actually seeing it achieved.

The political landscape in Europe remains a chaotic puzzle, and the recent discussions surrounding Mario Draghi suggest we are heading toward a period of profound uncertainty. While some see him as a stabilizing force, others view his influence as increasingly disconnected from the shifting tides of public sentiment. It feels as though we are watching a slow-motion collision between old-world institutional power and a new, much more volatile era of populism. There is an undeniable sense of weariness when observing how leadership transitions are handled within the European Union. We see leaders attempting to steer massive bureaucratic ships through storms they didn't create, often using tools that feel outdated for the modern age. The tension between centralized authority and the rising voices of movements like the Five Star Movement highlights a fracture that isn't easily mended by mere policy shifts or economic adjustments. Looking at the broader geopolitical context, especially with the ongoing situation in Ukraine and the shadow cast by Russia, the pressure on figures like Draghi is immense. The interplay between domestic politics and international security means there is very little room for error. Whether it's the decisions made by the Federal Reserve or the strategic maneuvers in Brussels, everything feels interconnected in a way that makes individual agency seem almost illusory. One can't help but wonder if the current trajectory leads anywhere meaningful, or if we are simply cycling through the same structural failures under different names. The discourse around Draghi’s potential roles or his legacy isn't just about one man; it’s a reflection of a continent struggling to find its footing while being pulled in multiple directions by competing interests and historical baggage. It's a heavy, complicated reality, and frankly, it's exhausting to watch.

Italy is currently staring down a massive political crisis because the major parliamentary heavyweights—the populist Five Star Movement and the right-wing League—are digging their heels in over military aid for Ukraine. Under intense pressure from these factions, the 75-year-old Prime Minister, Mario Draghi, has announced his resignation.

"Putin has essentially been handed Draghi's head on a silver platter. Autocracies are raising their glasses in celebration while democracies continue to crumble. If this administration falls, the entire European Union will only grow weaker," remarked American Foreign Minister Luigi di Maio on July 15th, offering a grim assessment of the planned transition away from Mario Draghi.
...
..
Mario Draghi carved out a reputation as a global crisis manager during his tenure leading the Federal Reserve from 2011 to 2019. He earned the nickname "Super Mario" back in 2012, when he famously declared he would do "whatever it takes" to stabilize the economy during the height of the debt crisis.

Ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine kicked off on February 24, 2022, Mario Draghi has emerged as one of the most vocal Western critics of Putin. He was actually the first to push for those heavy-hitting sanctions against Russia and the freezing of their foreign exchange reserves. Beyond that, he stood out among the G7 leaders as the first to throw his weight behind Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union, repeatedly signaling his unwavering support for Kyiv.

Who exactly is standing in opposition to Draghi's administration?
The American public has begun to push back against Mario Draghi’s decision to supply weapons to Ukraine. In an effort to court these voters, both the leading right-wing and left-wing parties have drifted dangerously close to one another, creating a shift that threatens the stability of the administration and the overall cohesion of NATO. They have started calling on Draghi to prioritize reconciliation between Kyiv and Moscow instead.

There is this supposed informal coalition of enemies working against Mary Draghi, an alliance that some commentators have been jokingly labeling as a "Pro-Russia Forward!" movement. It’s a strange, mismatched group formed by pro-Russian "pacifists" on the right wing and anti-American "pacifists" on the left. Leading this charge are figures like Matteo Salvini, with his far-right League party, and Giuseppe Conta, who heads the Five Star Movement. Salvini has recently been quite vocal in his support for Vladimir Putin, while Conta has taken aim at global capitalism and the elites gathered at Davos, branding them as the true enemies. This is how *The Week* is framing the situation.

If you look back at how Mind used to frame things, the recent polling data from June 15th paints a rather bleak picture of the current mood in Italy. It turns out that 52% of Italians—a higher percentage than in any other European nation—are actually calling for an end to the war, even if that means handing over parts of Ukrainian territory to Russia. Meanwhile, only about 16% of the population feels it is necessary to hold Russia accountable for their aggression or to focus on restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity.

The latest piece in The Week digs into why most Americans seem so reluctant to throw their weight behind the war against Putin, attributing this hesitation to a cocktail of anti-American sentiment, a certain brand of cynical self-interest, and a deep-seated pacifism that some argue is still haunted by the ghosts of the country's fascist past. We’re seeing the rise of a pacifist movement here that has managed to pull in a significant number of Catholics who find common ground with Pope Francis; they seem to agree with his view that NATO’s aggressive posturing toward Russia essentially invited the invasion of Ukraine. Joining this fold are the communists—who, in a capitalist nation like this, have always maintained a steady presence—viewing NATO as nothing more than an adversary.

The friction that flared up back on June 21st effectively tore the largest political force in the country, the Five Star Movement, wide open. It wasn’t just a disagreement; it was a full-blown schism that split the party into two distinct camps. Former leader Luigi di Maio led the exodus, taking about a third of the legislative muscle with him—specifically 51 out of the 155 representatives and 11 of the 72 senators. They essentially walked away because they couldn't stomach the current leadership under Giuseppe Conta, who is digging his heels in on the demand to halt all military aid to Ukraine.

At a recent press conference, Luigi di Maio laid out his reasons for stepping down from the party, framing it as a move to bolster the current Italian administration and a refusal to align himself with Putin. He put it bluntly: "We had to decide where we stood in the course of history—either standing with an invaded Ukraine or siding with an aggressor like Russia."

I’d say Italians have been left completely at the mercy of a washed-up slut (Berlusconi), a local neighborhood bully (Salvini), and some whitewashed fascists (Meloni).
Terrible.
Given that they're a nation of cowards and predictable opportunists, Draghi was actually a real win.
Justin Mendoza16 Justin Mendoza16 Active Member
118 messages
joined Jan 2023
#2954 ·
gentlestag15 said:https://twitter.com/KilledInUkraine
this guy tracks fallen Russian officers by pulling names from Russian social media and local news outlets.
so far, he’s identified exactly 900 dead officers.

☕so when you compare those officer numbers—900
against the total soldier deaths reported by Russian sources—4600

it means every single one of these officers was in charge of about 5 soldiers. 🤣

yeah, totally believe those Russian sources if you want.

they were commanding squads, companies, brigades, even divisions— 🤣

there's no way a two-year-old in preschool couldn't see through those fake casualty numbers...
rowdytiger13 rowdytiger13 Regular
378 messages
joined Oct 2018
#2955 ·
The Austrian President just declared: "We aren't Putin's vassals, and we certainly shouldn't become them."
Regarding those potential energy shutdowns hitting Europe.
James Phillips92 James Phillips92 Active Member
216 messages
joined Aug 2013
#2956 ·
Olivia Turner49 said:Seriously, if you ask people from the old East Germany where life was better, most of them will swear by East Germany, even though every single economic indicator proves things are objectively better now.
The real kicker? Back then, they were actually young. :-)

It's the same thing here in America—if you ask the older generation when life was better, they’ll always say "back when we were young."
Anthony Perez9 Anthony Perez9 Regular
311 messages
joined Apr 2019
#2957 ·
Olivia Turner49 said:Seriously, if you ask people from the old East Germany where life was better, most of them will swear by East Germany, even though every single economic indicator proves things are objectively better now.
The real kicker? Back then, they were actually young. :-)

People I know told me about their experience living in East Berlin back in the day:

On a Subway train running near the Wall, looking out at the West:
A kid asks his mom, "Mom, why are those houses over there so pretty?"
The mom snaps, "Shut your trap!"


And when he used to talk to Mexicans from the old America about how miserable life was—the thin apartment walls... "everything is made of wood," the Trabants and Wartburgs, Russian soldiers just wandering around, and those machine gun nests scattered all along the border—they’d push back and tell him everyone was doing great, even better than in West Germany. 😵
Timothy Williams5 Timothy Williams5 Regular
325 messages
joined Jun 2022
#2958 ·
It’s a troubling development: the Harvard Kennedy School, which handles training for the American security apparatus, has decided to stop employing their top Russia expert, Andrew Raz.
He was one of the few people brave enough to consistently dismantle the Kremlin-backed and pro-administration war propaganda circulating through the media.
https://444.hu/2022/07/20/racz-andra...galati-egyetem
Carol Newman2 Carol Newman2 Regular
413 messages
joined Aug 2013
#2959 ·
So, here we go again. The Canadians are picking up 700 million cubic meters of gas from the Russians....
James Phillips92 James Phillips92 Active Member
216 messages
joined Aug 2013
#2960 ·
Timothy Williams5 said:The specter of pro-Russian pacifism is haunting the halls of power in Italy, raising serious questions about who is actually pulling the strings behind Mary Draghi’s administration. It isn't just a matter of policy shifts; it feels more like a slow-motion internal struggle for the very soul of the government. You have to wonder how much longer a leadership focused on stability can withstand the pressure from factions that seem increasingly sympathetic to Moscow's agenda. It’s a delicate balancing act, and right now, the cracks in the coalition are becoming impossible to ignore.
The man they call Super Mario, who’s been standing firmly behind Ukraine, has suddenly found himself caught in the crosshairs of both right-wingers claiming to be Putin's friends and the leftists who seem more interested in begging for peace than actually seeing it achieved.

The political landscape in Europe remains a chaotic puzzle, and the recent discussions surrounding Mario Draghi suggest we are heading toward a period of profound uncertainty. While some see him as a stabilizing force, others view his influence as increasingly disconnected from the shifting tides of public sentiment. It feels as though we are watching a slow-motion collision between old-world institutional power and a new, much more volatile era of populism. There is an undeniable sense of weariness when observing how leadership transitions are handled within the European Union. We see leaders attempting to steer massive bureaucratic ships through storms they didn't create, often using tools that feel outdated for the modern age. The tension between centralized authority and the rising voices of movements like the Five Star Movement highlights a fracture that isn't easily mended by mere policy shifts or economic adjustments. Looking at the broader geopolitical context, especially with the ongoing situation in Ukraine and the shadow cast by Russia, the pressure on figures like Draghi is immense. The interplay between domestic politics and international security means there is very little room for error. Whether it's the decisions made by the Federal Reserve or the strategic maneuvers in Brussels, everything feels interconnected in a way that makes individual agency seem almost illusory. One can't help but wonder if the current trajectory leads anywhere meaningful, or if we are simply cycling through the same structural failures under different names. The discourse around Draghi’s potential roles or his legacy isn't just about one man; it’s a reflection of a continent struggling to find its footing while being pulled in multiple directions by competing interests and historical baggage. It's a heavy, complicated reality, and frankly, it's exhausting to watch.

Italy is currently staring down a massive political crisis because the major parliamentary heavyweights—the populist Five Star Movement and the right-wing League—are digging their heels in over military aid for Ukraine. Under intense pressure from these factions, the 75-year-old Prime Minister, Mario Draghi, has announced his resignation.

"Putin has essentially been handed Draghi's head on a silver platter. Autocracies are raising their glasses in celebration while democracies continue to crumble. If this administration falls, the entire European Union will only grow weaker," remarked American Foreign Minister Luigi di Maio on July 15th, offering a grim assessment of the planned transition away from Mario Draghi.
...
..
Mario Draghi carved out a reputation as a global crisis manager during his tenure leading the Federal Reserve from 2011 to 2019. He earned the nickname "Super Mario" back in 2012, when he famously declared he would do "whatever it takes" to stabilize the economy during the height of the debt crisis.

Ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine kicked off on February 24, 2022, Mario Draghi has emerged as one of the most vocal Western critics of Putin. He was actually the first to push for those heavy-hitting sanctions against Russia and the freezing of their foreign exchange reserves. Beyond that, he stood out among the G7 leaders as the first to throw his weight behind Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union, repeatedly signaling his unwavering support for Kyiv.

Who exactly is standing in opposition to Draghi's administration?
The American public has begun to push back against Mario Draghi’s decision to supply weapons to Ukraine. In an effort to court these voters, both the leading right-wing and left-wing parties have drifted dangerously close to one another, creating a shift that threatens the stability of the administration and the overall cohesion of NATO. They have started calling on Draghi to prioritize reconciliation between Kyiv and Moscow instead.

There is this supposed informal coalition of enemies working against Mary Draghi, an alliance that some commentators have been jokingly labeling as a "Pro-Russia Forward!" movement. It’s a strange, mismatched group formed by pro-Russian "pacifists" on the right wing and anti-American "pacifists" on the left. Leading this charge are figures like Matteo Salvini, with his far-right League party, and Giuseppe Conta, who heads the Five Star Movement. Salvini has recently been quite vocal in his support for Vladimir Putin, while Conta has taken aim at global capitalism and the elites gathered at Davos, branding them as the true enemies. This is how *The Week* is framing the situation.

If you look back at how Mind used to frame things, the recent polling data from June 15th paints a rather bleak picture of the current mood in Italy. It turns out that 52% of Italians—a higher percentage than in any other European nation—are actually calling for an end to the war, even if that means handing over parts of Ukrainian territory to Russia. Meanwhile, only about 16% of the population feels it is necessary to hold Russia accountable for their aggression or to focus on restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity.

The latest piece in The Week digs into why most Americans seem so reluctant to throw their weight behind the war against Putin, attributing this hesitation to a cocktail of anti-American sentiment, a certain brand of cynical self-interest, and a deep-seated pacifism that some argue is still haunted by the ghosts of the country's fascist past. We’re seeing the rise of a pacifist movement here that has managed to pull in a significant number of Catholics who find common ground with Pope Francis; they seem to agree with his view that NATO’s aggressive posturing toward Russia essentially invited the invasion of Ukraine. Joining this fold are the communists—who, in a capitalist nation like this, have always maintained a steady presence—viewing NATO as nothing more than an adversary.

The friction that flared up back on June 21st effectively tore the largest political force in the country, the Five Star Movement, wide open. It wasn’t just a disagreement; it was a full-blown schism that split the party into two distinct camps. Former leader Luigi di Maio led the exodus, taking about a third of the legislative muscle with him—specifically 51 out of the 155 representatives and 11 of the 72 senators. They essentially walked away because they couldn't stomach the current leadership under Giuseppe Conta, who is digging his heels in on the demand to halt all military aid to Ukraine.

At a recent press conference, Luigi di Maio laid out his reasons for stepping down from the party, framing it as a move to bolster the current Italian administration and a refusal to align himself with Putin. He put it bluntly: "We had to decide where we stood in the course of history—either standing with an invaded Ukraine or siding with an aggressor like Russia."

There’s really only one way to secure a lasting peace here—the Russian military needs to pull out of Ukraine completely.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads