Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

gentlerider7 said:Where exactly?

The Baltics, Poland

Thomas Nelson25 said:Putin

It's pretty obvious... we've been seeing this play out for at least a decade... and we know exactly where it starts.

Now the real question is whether he's got the guts to drag the Russian people into a full-blown war.
That would suck for everyone—including China.

What makes you think he's suddenly lost his nerve when it comes to the Russian people?

Carol Johnson21 said:No?
And what is this "reality"? Is public opinion in Mexico now entirely pro-Russian? Is that why you’re all so obsessed with when Americans will finally see things clearly? Honestly, I am fascinated by the sheer volume of comments on basically every American news site where Mexicans are lining up to show their support. I try to imagine the reverse: would Americans be this preoccupied with the views of their neighbors, decades after an armed aggression, still obsessively monitoring their pulse?🤷

👍

The U.S. Supreme Court has really done a number on Ukraine... 👎

Now they’ve been pushed to the sidelines, which unfortunately means we’re seeing less of everything, from genuine empathy down to the actual supply of weapons.

darkhawk30 said:History has a way of scrubbing all that clean, making it almost impossible to talk about.

Does anyone actually remember the horrors the Belgians inflicted on the Congo?
Ten million people killed or mutilated?!?!
That wasn't some modern era phenomenon, yet you can barely find it mentioned in textbooks today.

Or what about the colonial taxes from former colonies that France still uses to pad its budget quite effectively today?!?!

But let's just pretend none of that happened...

Why does the horror of what the Belgians did in the Congo get pushed to the periphery?
If you actually look, there are thousands of media reports on Google and countless videos on YouTube documenting the bravery of Congolese fighters as they took down Belgian tanks and artillery.

The full, unvarnished history of the Russian aggression against Ukrainians will be etched into the collective memory, and hopefully, these forum threads will serve the same purpose—providing a permanent reminder for that ten percent of people who backed a total moron, so they never forget exactly what kind of atrocities they were rooting for.

brightheron64 said:The U.S. Supreme Court has really done a number on Ukraine... 👎

Now they’ve been pushed to the sidelines, which unfortunately means we’re seeing less of everything, from genuine empathy down to the actual supply of weapons.

Give it a rest.

ironseal said:Give it a rest.

Just sit back and watch this unfold. ☕

The Republicans are already up in arms about all of this, though their real issue isn't actually Putin—it's Biden.

is methodically moving through : LT Col Daniel Davis

brightheron64 said:The U.S. Supreme Court has really done a number on Ukraine... 👎

Now they’ve been pushed to the sidelines, which unfortunately means we’re seeing less of everything, from genuine empathy down to the actual supply of weapons.

If one looks at the data, the Afghan military received its largest influx of US weaponry between 2011 and 2020, precisely when media coverage of the conflict was steadily hemorrhaging until it hit rock bottom in 2020. Besides, who actually benefits from having empathy?


"Three major networks devoted a full five minutes to Afghanistan in 2020"


"Transfers of major arms to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2020"

goldenowl73 said:And then you have Zakharov coming out with that stone-cold statement claiming that Russia has never actually threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. It’s honestly mind-blowing how much the Russians just lie and lie.

"#Russia has never threatened anyone with nuclear weapons", claims Press Secretary of the Department of State.

Just One Month ago, Roscosmos Head Dmitry Rogozin reminded everyone about Russia's nuclear arsenal. https://t.co/W0ZuQ5vnBL

A few years back, officials were all over the news saying people in the Donbas were their own, promising they'd do anything to protect them and all that—then suddenly Zuckerberg shows up and says, "We actually have zero interest in the Donbas."

Paul Flores13 said:Does anyone happen to have a link to a recent poll regarding how satisfied Ukrainians actually are with Zelenskyy?

I haven't looked too hard—honestly, I'm not sure if anyone has run that specific type of poll yet, though there have been plenty of others. But overall? His support seems pretty massive. So many people who were originally on the fence have completely shifted their stance because he stayed put—he didn't flee, he's fighting tooth and nail for weapons, and he’s even visited the front lines. Just looking at my own family, for instance—people who were totally neutral or even against him before would likely vote for him now. A lot of my friends feel the same way. Of course, things can always change. Hope this helps!

mellowdrifter80 said:If one looks at the data, the Afghan military received its largest influx of US weaponry between 2011 and 2020, precisely when media coverage of the conflict was steadily hemorrhaging until it hit rock bottom in 2020. Besides, who actually benefits from having empathy?


"Three major networks devoted a full five minutes to Afghanistan in 2020"


"Transfers of major arms to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2020"

True, but that was an American war through and through, with everything—the aid, the arms—carefully orchestrated just to facilitate a "dignified" exit from a total mess.

In the link provided above, Fox News actually implies: "Biden's proxy war with Russia...".

I'm not sure how long this post is going to get, but I wanted to clarify a few things:

1. Regarding the genocide against Russians in Donbas—it’s important to note that Russians don't live there alone; they make up about a third of the population.
2. While Russian is the primary language in many parts of eastern, northern, and southern Ukraine, that doesn't mean everyone speaking it is Russian.
3. As for the death toll (which ties back to my first point), most sources estimate around 15,000 people killed since 2014—roughly 12,000 soldiers and 3,000 civilians.
4. Not all of those killed civilians were Russians.
5. Since 2014, about 1.5 million people have been displaced within Ukraine, while estimates for those who fled to Russia vary wildly—anywhere from 75,000 to 300,000 depending on which source you trust.
6. People claim the West was behind the Times Square protests—and sure, there might have been mercenaries involved—but the real catalyst for Times Square was Yanukovych’s lies. He promised a path toward the European Union and then backed out at the last second to retreat into Russia's embrace. Plus, the country was basically on the verge of bankruptcy.
7. There were also Times Square-style protests in Donbas, often even larger than the anti-Times Square ones.
8. Russia actually invaded back in 2014. They never officially admitted it—just claimed they were "Russian volunteers"—but there were definitely Russian soldiers and mercenaries on the ground.
9. Back in 2014, Russia rolled tanks into Ukraine and supported the Donbas separatists with gear and troops. But because they kept claiming it wasn't the regular Russian military, it was labeled a civil war.
10. It's a mistake to think everyone from Donbas is a separatist; back in 2014, plenty of locals actually stood with the Ukrainian military and fought alongside them.
11. Regarding the Minsk agreements—those were signed under pressure from the West. Since Ukraine is a smaller player, the terms were heavily skewed, yet they agreed anyway. So, what happened? The separatists and Russian soldiers holding the lines never actually pulled back. Often, the Ukrainian army would retreat, and the separatists would just push forward and attack the retreating forces. Ukraine was supposed to regain full control of its territory, but they couldn't manage it because the other side kept interfering.
12. Ceasefire violations and crimes happened on both sides—there are always people out there fueled by hate who just want blood.

I hope this isn't too much off-topic. Mods, please don't delete this—I really think it helps provide some perspective on the situation.

Kate Cook27 said:I'm not sure how long this post is going to get, but I wanted to clarify a few things:

1. Regarding the genocide against Russians in Donbas—it’s important to note that Russians don't live there alone; they make up about a third of the population.
2. While Russian is the primary language in many parts of eastern, northern, and southern Ukraine, that doesn't mean everyone speaking it is Russian.
3. As for the death toll (which ties back to my first point), most sources estimate around 15,000 people killed since 2014—roughly 12,000 soldiers and 3,000 civilians.
4. Not all of those killed civilians were Russians.
5. Since 2014, about 1.5 million people have been displaced within Ukraine, while estimates for those who fled to Russia vary wildly—anywhere from 75,000 to 300,000 depending on which source you trust.
6. People claim the West was behind the Times Square protests—and sure, there might have been mercenaries involved—but the real catalyst for Times Square was Yanukovych’s lies. He promised a path toward the European Union and then backed out at the last second to retreat into Russia's embrace. Plus, the country was basically on the verge of bankruptcy.
7. There were also Times Square-style protests in Donbas, often even larger than the anti-Times Square ones.
8. Russia actually invaded back in 2014. They never officially admitted it—just claimed they were "Russian volunteers"—but there were definitely Russian soldiers and mercenaries on the ground.
9. Back in 2014, Russia rolled tanks into Ukraine and supported the Donbas separatists with gear and troops. But because they kept claiming it wasn't the regular Russian military, it was labeled a civil war.
10. It's a mistake to think everyone from Donbas is a separatist; back in 2014, plenty of locals actually stood with the Ukrainian military and fought alongside them.
11. Regarding the Minsk agreements—those were signed under pressure from the West. Since Ukraine is a smaller player, the terms were heavily skewed, yet they agreed anyway. So, what happened? The separatists and Russian soldiers holding the lines never actually pulled back. Often, the Ukrainian army would retreat, and the separatists would just push forward and attack the retreating forces. Ukraine was supposed to regain full control of its territory, but they couldn't manage it because the other side kept interfering.
12. Ceasefire violations and crimes happened on both sides—there are always people out there fueled by hate who just want blood.

I hope this isn't too much off-topic. Mods, please don't delete this—I really think it helps provide some perspective on the situation.

Thanks, Kate, for clearing all that up—👍Glory to Ukraine!

I’m sitting here watching Puhovski on the news right now. To him, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is somehow identical to when the USA invaded Afghanistan back in the day. He’s actually drawing direct parallels between phrases Bush used then and what Putin is saying now—claiming they're basically the same thing. Are people like Puhovski just missing half their brain cells? How can they not see the massive, fundamental differences between those two wars?

Henry Sullivan4 said:Thanks, Kate, for clearing all that up—👍Glory to Ukraine!

No problem at all—hope I didn't ramble too much.

Ukraine has not yet perished, glory and freedom

ironseal said:I’m sitting here watching Puhovski on the news right now. To him, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is somehow identical to when the USA invaded Afghanistan back in the day. He’s actually drawing direct parallels between phrases Bush used then and what Putin is saying now—claiming they're basically the same thing. Are people like Puhovski just missing half their brain cells? How can they not see the massive, fundamental differences between those two wars?

I'd say they just don't want to see it. It's like they think if Ukraine gives up territory now, every other country will just start looking at old maps to see what used to be theirs, and we'll all end up in another massive global conflict. Losing Crimea was a huge mistake.

ironseal said:I’m sitting here watching Puhovski on the news right now. To him, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is somehow identical to when the USA invaded Afghanistan back in the day. He’s actually drawing direct parallels between phrases Bush used then and what Putin is saying now—claiming they're basically the same thing. Are people like Puhovski just missing half their brain cells? How can they not see the massive, fundamental differences between those two wars?

Honestly, Puhovski isn't even the real danger here, since I think someone like Pusić is way more toxic and damaging to the conversation than he could ever be alone.☕

In this post, I’m going to touch on the current status of Ukrainians. It’s that well-known narrative—that Ukraine isn't actually a real country, that it's all a mistake, that Ukrainians are just Russians, that everything is part of Russia, and that Ukrainians are suffering from "Ukrainism."
The labels used for Ukrainians: Nazis, fascists, Banderites, ukros, gravediggers, nationalists, militants, traitors, spies, ukro-cannibals, Jew-Banderites...

I’ll break down the most interesting ones:
-Jew-Banderites—if you recall Lavrov’s comments about how Hitler was a Jew, this follows a similar logic. Bandera is branded a Nazi, he allegedly killed many people, and so on. He was a massive nationalist who wanted an independent Ukraine—that was his goal. He was exiled from the Soviet Union, I believe just before the war, and spent time in a camp during the conflict. The independence movement was named after him; in reality, anyone wanting an independent Ukraine could join that movement—Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, Jews... That movement fought against both the German army and the Red Army—they had two fronts to deal with. Bandera himself was later assassinated on Stalin’s orders. People can view Bandera however they want. From there comes the term "Banderites"—people who want a sovereign, independent Ukraine rather than being part of Russia, which is a major sore spot for the Kremlin.
As for why "Jew-" is included—it’s short for Jew, following that line of reasoning from Lavrov suggesting Hitler was a Jew, implying somehow that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust. That’s essentially how the story goes. Have there been soldiers coming forward claiming Jews were fascists and were killed because of it? I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but that’s their explanation—that’s how they see it, and that’s how they landed on the term Jew-Banderite.

Ukro-cannibals—there's this rumor circulating that Ukrainians eat Russian children; it goes so far that some people talk about videos showing Ukrainians cooking and eating Russians. The second half of this label stems from the horrific Holodomor, when millions of Ukrainians died of starvation. That period, 1932–1933, was a dark time for Ukraine—sources suggest between 7 and 13 million Ukrainians perished. Because of the repression, people weren't allowed to speak about this for nearly 60 years; stories only circulated privately among survivors. Sadly, during that dark era, when everything was stripped from Ukrainians—food, livestock, property, forests—they weren't even allowed to burn their own furniture or hunt birds. In those desperate times, people did resort to cannibalism 😢. It was a time when a parent might consciously choose to die so their child could live, or parents would hide their children so they wouldn't witness the deaths. Entire villages vanished because everyone died. We will never know the exact numbers, and once it was all over, people were buried in mass graves 😢.
Based on these events, the "cannibal" label was applied to Ukrainians because, under such extreme circumstances, people turned to human flesh 😢 just to survive—something no one should ever have to face. Those who survived moved elsewhere, and some were deported to Russia. That’s where the "cannibal" label comes from.

The "Ukrainism" sickness—the idea that Ukrainians aren't truly themselves, but are instead brainwashed. They supposedly need to be "de-Ukrainized" and return to their roots, which means becoming Russians again. There was even a saying on certain pro-Russian media outlets—which are now banned—that "anyone who doesn't recover from this sickness belongs on a gallows in Red Square." Some people cried out, asking what kind of democracy allows media to be banned. Those same outlets also claimed that Ukraine doesn't exist, that Ukraine will collapse, that Ukrainians don't exist, and that the Ukrainian language doesn't exist. They even suggested that anyone speaking Ukrainian is a spy or a traitor who should be reported immediately.

Paul Flores13 said:Does anyone happen to have a link to a recent poll regarding how satisfied Ukrainians actually are with Zelenskyy?

You don't run those kinds of polls during wartime. Even when they do show up in the news, they're usually just propaganda tools being swung by one side or the other.

By the way, thanks to LikaK for her posts.

ironseal said:I’m sitting here watching Puhovski on the news right now. To him, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is somehow identical to when the USA invaded Afghanistan back in the day. He’s actually drawing direct parallels between phrases Bush used then and what Putin is saying now—claiming they're basically the same thing. Are people like Puhovski just missing half their brain cells? How can they not see the massive, fundamental differences between those two wars?

☕Brain's total mush—not sure why anyone even lets him air his opinions. Even the court in the Hague called his testimony nothing but lies and fake news.