Russian invasion of Ukraine

[YUPPIE]

Yes, it's known what would happen. RuZZkies would rage about it, and their terrorist presence in Ukraine would be terminated. That's all. They are not going to have their country glassed over....you know, having their country intact as it was before this terrorist venture.

Well by your analysis or assumptions, that makes the US look worse. The fact there are supposedly no consequences if we step in and know it, yet aren’t despite civilians being raped and killed every day.

- - - Updated - - -

But currently, there are a lot of US boots all over the eastern NATO borders, as well as of other NATO members.

that's fine to russia; relatively speaking.

[Veggie50]

Well by your analysis or assumptions, that makes the US look worse. The fact there are supposedly no consequences if we step in and know it, yet aren’t despite civilians being raped and killed every day.

- - - Updated - - -


that's fine to russia; relatively speaking.

The reason the USA doesnt is because of a lot of things…

- USA is not the world police
- USA would have to justify loss of american lives to its population
- NATO would lose credibility as a purely defensive coalition

Note how none of these are “Putin scares the USA”

[Huehuecoyotl]

you already know what would actually happen if Western forces put boots on Ukrainian ground, man. If that too was bluster, this war would already be over.

Nothing? Is that the answer? Because nothing is what Russia has done in the face of every single US/NATO "escalation" so far.

What you are so subtly trying to say is that Russia would throw nukes if US troops went into Ukraine. That somehow that is the final "red line" for them. And that's horseshit. The only point where Russia might genuinely consider nukes is if US/NATO go into Russian soil, and that is NEVER going to happen.

If things get to the point where the West sends forces into Ukraine to actively assist in the defence, then Russia will do precisely sod all. Hell, they might even pull back to avoid the chance of getting into an active fire-fight with them. Because they know they are wildly outmatched in any conflict, and they would be starting something that would finish very quickly and very bloodily for their troops.

It's still unlikely that will happen. Because the US doing it unilaterally looks bad, and NATO (as many people have previously explained) is a defensive pact. But stop pretending that ANYTHING happening in Ukraine will end up with Russia throwing nukes. There are no scenarios where that happens.

There are plenty of scenarios where they might threaten it. But that's a different matter.

[Iphie]

The only point where Russia might genuinely consider nukes is if US/NATO go into Russian soil, and that is NEVER going to happen.

I would add "or what they perceive to be rightful russian soil", probably not Donbas, Zaporizhzhia or Kherson, but Crimea...eh, maybe?

[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.