Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Edge-]

good timing because I've been observing progress on a brutal ongoing battle ATM

Vugledar is about 150 kilometres (93 miles) south of Bakhmut, where Russian troops have been fighting for control longer than for any other city since the invasion.

Ukraine said today its troops were locked in "fierce" fighting with Russian troops for control of the town of Vugledar in the region of Donetsk on the eastern front.

Russian-backed forces claimed they were "waiting for good news" from the town, which had a pre-invasion population of around 15,000 people, but Kyiv said Moscow's troops were misrepresenting any gains.

"There is fierce combat there," Ukrainian military spokesman Sergiy Cherevaty told local media.

"For many months, the military of the Russian Federation... has been trying to achieve significant success there," he said.

So...no?

Russia is still fighting over a tiny town (man, the tiny town I grew up in has a bigger population than that) that they've been fighting over for months?

The article doesn't say, but is there any strategic value to this town beyond, "Putin wants to control all of the Donetsk region.", but is there?

[Gabriel]

The offense I took was people here now saying MAD and the nuke threat aren't actually real on Russia's part, that also being a bluff. I take it as an offense because then, hypothetically, it means Russia has absolutely no leverage and nothing should be stopping the West from getting in Ukraine right now; minimal casualties means fuck all in the scope of things.

So that paints the narrative we are just watching them do all this evil shit but it's not really our personal business to stop them directly - yet we can at any point, any time.

Bingo. We in the West have grown too comfortable and averse to violence. We absolutely could stop the genocide going on in Ukraine right now, but majority of people have lost their proverbial balls and people in power have grown fat on the teat of cheap russian energy. I have no issue admitting this.

[Voidism]

Bingo. We in the West have grown too comfortable and averse to violence. We absolutely could stop the genocide going on in Ukraine right now, but majority of people have lost their proverbial balls and people in power have grown fat on the teat of cheap russian energy. I have no issue admitting this.

Yes, this is pretty much the reason. Many still haven't "woken up" as we accuse the russian people of. We're way more 'awake' than the russians, but we are in the early stages of understanding this is a new order of things. I wish russian people would wake up to reality too.

[YUPPIE]

So...no?

Russia is still fighting over a tiny town (man, the tiny town I grew up in has a bigger population than that) that they've been fighting over for months?

The article doesn't say, but is there any strategic value to this town beyond, "Putin wants to control all of the Donetsk region.", but is there?

sorry about late reply; I drink heavily in the mornings.

Anyways, I'm just gonna make an analogy here:

Say it's a small town, like you say: 15k people and some 100+ Ukrainian soldiers. Should a Russian take this hypothetical town, a few things happen

1) They plant their seeds there, inching for an offensive bit by bit. "Brick by brick, house to house."

2) they kill, deport, and/or torture every Ukrainian there, so that metaphorical 15k+ casualties.

So any time the Russians captures a town in Ukraine, no matter how small, that's what it amounts to. It shouldn't happen, and it's why a shantytown like Vugledar - as you say - is being brutally contested.

That's my take.

[Edge-]

sorry about late reply; I drink heavily in the mornings.

This explains a lot.

Anyways, I'm just gonna make an analogy here:

I'd rather you deal with reality rather than whatever fictional scenario you conjure up in your head, especially after some early morning drinking.

[YUPPIE]

It's just an analogy, not fiction, as to why Ukraine values these small towns or seemingly inconsequential locales people brush off like Soledar. And it's a good explanation to why Russia goes all-out for them, because on paper it sounds stupid they would be so desperate to take some meager land.

[Makabreska]

sorry about late reply; I drink heavily in the mornings.

Do you really think what you do is good for you?

[Gabriel]

I drink heavily in the mornings.

We know m8.

[Nymrohd]

The offense I took was people here now saying MAD and the nuke threat aren't actually real on Russia's part, that also being a bluff.

There absolutely is reasonably doubt on MAD. The hypothesis that Russia likely struggled maintaining their arsenal because of the immense cost is not new (especially considering START and New START). The level of corruption shown and the effect it has had on military preparedness for Russia absolutely makes one question how much of the Russian nuclear arsenal is actually operative. Their military complex seems to have largely been performative, spending money on expensive trailers for Wunderwaffe that never really existed. Otherwise, where are they?

[YUPPIE]

There absolutely is reasonably doubt on MAD. The hypothesis that Russia likely struggled maintaining their arsenal because of the immense cost is not new (especially considering START and New START). The level of corruption shown and the effect it has had on military preparedness for Russia absolutely makes one question how much of the Russian nuclear arsenal is actually operative. Their military complex seems to have largely been performative, spending money on expensive trailers for Wunderwaffe that never really existed. Otherwise, where are they?

Look I don’t want to be repetitive since this talk was exhausted, but the US secret services are basically omniscient; they know everything out there. If Russia’s WMD capabilities were as doubtful as you say, no doubt the US would know. And at that point, what’d hold them back from not only wiping out the Russians in Ukraine, but also invading Moscow? I mean Russia is the US’ mortal enemy, after all.

The real reason is there is indeed some degree of serious threat from Russia they hold the cards to that prevents the West from doing that.

[Edge-]

but the US secret services are basically omniscient

Fuckin rofl, no they fuckin aren't.

[DarkTZeratul]

Fuckin rofl, no they fuckin aren't.

They do have a vested interest in letting people think they are, though, so... Good job Yuppie on falling for their propaganda.

[YUPPIE]

Fuckin rofl, no they fuckin aren't.

They are actually really scary when you even read the silver lining. Remember when Clinton said the US is just playing nice with the Saudis but can pull the “stick” at any given time? Even now, the US is occasionally dialing Putin and telling him *something* that prevents him from using WMDs or doing worse, likely them already knowing where he is hiding at any given time. That's why he grumbles as he just sticks to conventional warfare.

I have faith in the US largely because of their intelligence and espionage networks to keep our country safe and a cut above.

[Edge-]

They are actually really scary when you even read the silver lining.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obam...ry?id=25879349

I'm here once again trying to talk you back to reality, reminding you of that time the USSS let an armed former-criminal into an elevator with the President of the United States. I don't even know where you conjured up this notion unless you've been drinking more heavily than usual.

Remember when Clinton said the US is just playing nice with the Saudis but can pull the “stick” at any given time?

Not specifically, but what relevance does this have?

Even now, the US is occasionally dialing Putin and telling him *something* that prevents him from using WMDs or doing worse, likely them already knowing where he is hiding at any given time.

They are? Surely you have documented evidence of this that's not, "The bottle told me."

[Corvus]

I believe the US spends more on just maintaining its nuclear arsenal than russia spends on its military, including its nukes. Nukes are crazy expensive. And Russia claims to have as many as the US. Yes they have a lot, but those numbers don't add up. Through in corruption and russia's arsenal is probably not as extensive or well maintained as they claim.

[YUPPIE]

I believe the US spends more on just maintaining its nuclear arsenal than russia spends on its military, including its nukes. Nukes are crazy expensive. And Russia claims to have as many as the US. Yes they have a lot, but those numbers don't add up. Through in corruption and russia's arsenal is probably not as extensive or well maintained as they claim.

then just please tell me why NATO and the US don't go in if there's no meaningful risk to them.

Because if Russia has no nukes, all they have is that shitty army and legion of mercs getting destroyed in Ukraine as it is. They would stand no chance and this would've ended a long time ago.

[Edge-]

then just please tell me why NATO and the US don't go in if there's no meaningful risk to them.

Because that's a war crime. You know, starting an unprovoked invasion of another country.

You know, that thing Russia is doing right now.

Seriously, stop drinking.

[YUPPIE]

Because that's a war crime. You know, starting an unprovoked invasion of another country.

You know, that thing Russia is doing right now.

Seriously, stop drinking.

No, not into Moscow. That one was purely hypothetical.

I mean putting boots into Ukraine and putting an end to Russia's invasion there.

[Saradain]

No, not into Moscow. That one was purely hypothetical.

I mean putting boots into Ukraine and putting an end to Russia's invasion there.

Because in the end USA needs to follow its own interests as well in the great game of politics. Getting rid of Nazi Russia's capability for a small price is the best outcome they could have ever dreamed of.

Ukraine is in this for its right to exist, to protect home and family.

The rest of the nations probably have more tactical reason, with some altruism in the mix depending on the country.

And no matter how great US-provided equipment could be, any falling into russian hands means they donated superior technology for a terrorist state. Probably that is why the better variants of Abrams going to Ukraine are still lacking something a media called "super armor mix". And if USA went straight to Ukraine with its standing army, the likelihood of american equipment getting destroyed in the tussle gets higher. The chance is less if some of Ukraine's equipment is american, not everything ie in case of US counter-invasion.

[YUPPIE]

Because in the end USA needs to follow its own interests as well in the great game of politics. Getting rid of Nazi Russia's capability for a small price is the best outcome they could have ever dreamed of.

Ukraine is in this for its right to exist, to protect home and family.

The rest of the nations probably have more tactical reason, with some altruism in the mix depending on the country.

And no matter how great US-provided equipment could be, any falling into russian hands means they donated superior technology for a terrorist state. Probably that is why the better variants of Abrams going to Ukraine are still lacking something a media called "super armor mix". And if USA went straight to Ukraine with its standing army, the likelihood of american equipment getting destroyed in the tussle gets higher. The chance is less if some of Ukraine's equipment is american, not everything ie in case of US counter-invasion.

ok that's a relatively satisfying answer even if it makes every other country sound self-serving.

It's also disturbing AF you just implied there are people out there (Russians) that would rape, torture, and murder uncensored before our very eyes and we don't immediately jump to the conclusion of "bring those evil fuckers to justice" and instead go "let's just observe for a while"