Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Corvus]

This dead russian seriously doesn't look older than 12.

https://twitter.com/yalpski/status/1618713824496091139

[Iphie]

This dead russian seriously doesn't look older than 12.

https://twitter.com/yalpski/status/1618713824496091139

Jezus fuck...are they *trying* to kill off every male russian?

[Makabreska]

Jezus fuck...are they *trying* to kill off every male russian?

INB4 "disgusting Ukrainians killing children" narrative.

[Iphie]

INB4 "disgusting Ukrainians killing children" narrative.

I actually meant the russian leadership....but yeah I can see how my words were ill chosen.

[Makabreska]

I actually meant the russian leadership....but yeah I can see how my words were ill chosen.

Yes, I get what you meant. What I said there was how some putinistas will easily spin this news around.

[Edge-]

This dead russian seriously doesn't look older than 12.

https://twitter.com/yalpski/status/1618713824496091139

Is there anything actually indicating this is real?

This has been as much a war of propaganda and misinformation as anything else, so I'm fairly extremely skeptical of most of these apparently total randos.

[Santti]

Is there anything actually indicating this is real?

This has been as much a war of propaganda and misinformation as anything else, so I'm fairly extremely skeptical of most of these apparently total randos.

If it's propaganda, I'd imagine it's by Ukraine. Can't really think what Russia would gain from showing pictures of children and tell how they died in military duty.

[Iphie]

If it's propaganda, I'd imagine it's by Ukraine. Can't really think what Russia would gain from showing pictures of children and tell how they died in military duty.

As Makabreska said: "Evil Nazi Ukrainians killing innocent heroic, patriotic russian children.", quite devious.

[Santti]

As Makabreska said: "Evil Nazi Ukrainians killing innocent heroic, patriotic russian children.", quite devious.

Pretty sure you'd leave the military part out altogether, if it was for propaganda purposes by Russia. It makes for a much better message, if it was just an innocent little boy, murdered by Ukrainians/Nazis. The military part just waters down the entire message, imo. Not to mention raising unfortunate questions on why the hell is it necessary to have literal children in the army in the first place. That's not a good look for an army whose entire shtick is to look strong.

[YUPPIE]

The US has responded to Russia's threats of "destroying" the US and its allies over the tanks and the implications of escalation.

Despite the disreputable outlet, what we know is the US supposedly told Russia that shit is repetitive now.

[Edge-]

If it's propaganda, I'd imagine it's by Ukraine. Can't really think what Russia would gain from showing pictures of children and tell how they died in military duty.

Yeah, I say propaganda neutrally. Both are heavily engaged in it, as any wartime country is.

It's like during the earlier months in the war when the internet was plastered with impossibly good looking people (usually young women) with impossibly pristine gear/uniforms who were apparently serving. Some of them actually did serve! But most of them were either models looking for clout because war is a good way to market your brand, or propaganda shit.

[YUPPIE]

- USA would have to justify loss of american lives to its population

In the last page and many before, you people have claimed the US (and NATO by extension) should get involved in Ukraine - were it not for the nuclear threat - because they would "stomp" Russia into the ground without incurring any losses in conventional warfare. The amount of times that battle in Syria was cited for example.

But now you imply it wouldn't be that one-sided

[DarkTZeratul]

But now you imply it wouldn't be that one-sided

Even a one-sided fight would still result in some number of American casualties, and in the mind of the public there's an enormous gap between "none" and "some."

[Xyonai]

In the last page and many before, you people have claimed the US (and NATO by extension) should get involved in Ukraine - were it not for the nuclear threat - because they would "stomp" Russia into the ground without incurring any losses in conventional warfare. The amount of times that battle in Syria was cited for example.

But now you imply it wouldn't be that one-sided

Ten guys with Bats vs Ten Pit Bulls still heavily favors the guys with bats, but there's a not insignificant chance that one of the guys will bet mauled by the pit bulls before they're finished.

[YUPPIE]

Yeah, you people have your reasonings, but I still think the US and NATO will never get involved; and also, for more legitimate reasons. So don't get your hopes up of them resolving this crisis in any meaningful capacity than sending supplies.

[Xyonai]

We're not disagreeing on that point???????

We're disagreeing with the point you're making about the US/NATO being too afraid of Russia to do anything when the reality is a whole web of contrived geopolitical nonsense that's hard to distill into easy-to-digest soundbites and snappy forum replies.

[YUPPIE]

We're disagreeing with the point you're making about the US/NATO being too afraid of Russia to do anything

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.

[Xyonai]

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.

No one wants to engage in a game of nuclear chicken with a nation that's shown its willingness to murder non-combatants wholesale. In the likely scenario their nuclear arsenal is dogshit, it just takes one missile getting through to kill millions; so even if we're able to push Russia's shit back to the stone age that's damage already done.

Keeping Russia contained to Ukraine keeps them from lashing out and being unpredictable.

[YUPPIE]

No one wants to engage in a game of nuclear chicken with a nation that's shown its willingness to murder non-combatants wholesale. In the likely scenario their nuclear arsenal is dogshit, it just takes one missile getting through to kill millions; so even if we're able to push Russia's shit back to the stone age that's damage already done.

Keeping Russia contained to Ukraine keeps them from lashing out and being unpredictable.

so the threat is real. And that's all that needs to be said for this topic.

Anyway since the convo seems muddled, I was mainly mad at people saying the US should interfere in Ukraine because Russia poses no genuine threat; that the only reason we don't is purely based on political reasons.

[Edge-]

so the threat is real. And that's all that needs to be said for this topic.

Anyway since the convo seems muddled, I was mainly mad at people saying the US should interfere in Ukraine because Russia poses no genuine threat; that the only reason we don't is purely based on political reasons.

Isn't that what sending Ukraine billions in aide, equipment, and training is?