Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
Oh Victor btw, I did save that quote, couldn't find it earlier:
You should see some of the Instagrams from the Nazi WAGS. Tbf,al many of them have recently become single.
For those who don't know, a "WAG" is an acronym used to refer to wives and girlfriends of high-profile sportsmen and women
This infographic is circulating in alt-right and tankie twitter, to claim the US is doing too much so americans asking to spend less for Ukraine are right
Problem is, this chart doesn't account for the immense costs of taking ukrainian refugees in, which run in the 4-5 billion per month and growing, since march 2022. That's all humanitarian aid, and the EU is spending all of it
It also doesn't account for the fact that boosting production is something that USA wanted and needed to do anyways. This is a program which saves money by not needed to destroy obsolete equipment and also boosts the economy by upping military production.
Anyone mad at the cost doesn't really understand what is happening. The vast majority of the aid never leaves USA.
In the Kursk direction, the enemy abruptly switched from the tactics of dropping anti-aircraft guns to mechanized assaults with the use of a large number of equipment.
A few days ago, I wrote about the fact that the podars are just throwing air bombs and FPV drones at everything, but now the situation has changed - the enemy was able to accumulate and transport equipment for the offensive.
In this situation, the emphasis should be placed not on any successes of the enemy (about which nothing is known yet), but on a sharp change in the nature of hostilities. I will tell you about the specific results later, all my guys are working.
It is not sounding good.
If ukraine loses too many people/resources there in Kursk, then yes in retrospect it was a Phyrric victory/show .
Question: can they withdraw back inside Ukrainian borders with minimal losses? or are they surrounded or something?
They're not surrounded, but logistics are not as good, they don't have access to Starlink (a huge deal), their positions aren't as easily defendable as the ones on the other side in Ukraine, and they are limited with what weapons they can use for support. The last point isn't quite as bad as when they were forced to do scoot and shoot maneuvers they had no business doing when the Kharkiv offensive started, but it's still bad.
But the situation there isn't the problem so much as the opportunity cost it took to set up there. The troops used to attack into Kursk were the troops that should have been used as reserves in Donetsk. By using those reserves in Kursk instead, Russia was able to speed up their attacks in Donetsk drastically.
This gives Russia more time to conduct their operation at Pokrovsk (or around it if they choose to ignore the city; it's not as important as the area around it is), and it also means that the fighting there will be more intense. Ukraine was hoping for a Krynky type of situation where it pulled a lot of Russian units and Ukraine could inflict a more positive attrition ratio, and in particular that Russia would allocate troops from Pokrovsk to Kursk, but so far the vast majority of the troops have been sent from elsewhere.
So if Russia is able to retake Kursk then Ukraine will essentially have given Russia more time around Pokrovsk, and a greater chance at a Russian breakthrough in Donetsk for nothing.
That's all on the military side. There's a lot of political reasons for the Kursk incursion too and it would be a pretty big political defeat if Russia is able to retake Kursk easily.
thanks for exposing your lie tho. well done.
I kept posting 20 Days in Mariupol and the NYT doc on Bucha, but for some reason I've seen no indication that the people I've posted it for have watched it. Really a shame, I guess they're just too busy reading their real news sources.
Instead of watching them, it was just brought up that USA has done bad things too.
There's a lot of opportunity cost for Kursk, unfortunately I think the worst case scenario is a good bit worse than this. If Ukraine had just kept doing what it was doing then there w
i acually clicked 20 days yesterday and the link expired XD I dont really need to watch that to know war is bad tho
They must have taken it down from youtube, that's too bad. You really need to watch it, and the sentence " I dont really need to watch that to know war is bad tho" proves it. You've been in here for months claiming that Russia doesn't do "above average" war crimes, and that all of the war crimes you see are from Twitter (presumably to cast doubt on their validity) and that they all involve energy infrastructure which is a valid target (which is false).
This is none of those things. What happened in Mariupol was not just attacks on energy infrastructure, it was not from Twitter, and it shows a gruesome and violent top down campaign which shows no concern for the deaths of civilians, and even outright called for intentionally killing civilians. This isn't a "war is bad" thing, it's a "Russians are intentionally murdering civilians to terrorize a country into capitulation" thing.
I suggest you find it.
They must have taken it down from youtube, that's too bad. You really need to watch it, and the sentence " I dont really need to watch that to know war is bad tho" proves it. You've been in here for months claiming that Russia doesn't do "above average" war crimes, and that all of the war crimes you see are from Twitter (presumably to cast doubt on their validity) and that they all involve energy infrastructure which is a valid target (which is false).
This is none of those things. What happened
a few dramatized events mean nothing to me. im interested in numbers
Well that's good because none of the events are dramatized (in fact none of the events shown have been dramatized, this is real life), and the documentary shows the scale of the attacks on Mariupol.
Not owned. I explained the context. That in no way proves that I "repeatedly made fun of the Gazans being murdered".
Yes I mentioned lingerie is a luxury item not normally found in "Prison camps" and almost certainly not found in the Warsaw Ghetto before its uprising. I mentioned this for several other things as well, which for some reason don't get brought up... I Wonder why. Weird that you'd consider that to be "owned" yet ignore this:
You should see some of the Instagrams from the Nazi WAGS. Tbf,al many of them have recently become single.
Dude is literally lusting over the widows of dead Ukrainians that he's labeling as Nazis, and talking about how they have "recently become single". This is far, far closer to "making fun" of someone's death. Weird that you're constantly cheerleading Victor in his ad hominems against me yet seem to ignore all of his indefensible behavior.
oh I was at that time def making fun of the Nazis that got got. and their gf too. (I am emphatically not doing that now and all the Azov neo-Nazis that died was a tragedy)
but there is nothing in that post that is lusting. I am saying to check out their instagrams bc there is a ton of neo-Nazi support there. remember that that thread had long back and forths about if Azov was really ne-Nazi or not. check the WAG instas and you will see it.
LOL
A likely story.
Also disgusting in multiple ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAGs
In 2010, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) criticised the term as sexist and stated that it could be offensive, as it was often used to demean women.[9] Other commentators have reflected this view. Felicity Morse has argued that "referring to any woman pejoratively as a 'wife or girlfriend' is not acceptable, and that the "casual repetition of this chauvinist term has normalised it".[10] Dana Johannsen described the term as "the most odious acronym in sport",[11] while Melanie Dinjaski argued that it demeans women and "implies a link between women and dogs, happily wagging their tails at their owner's (player's) side".[12] In examining the use of the term WAG, Shawna Marks concluded that its use in the Australian media "highlight[s] sexist norms that persist within Australian football culture", and that this extended to other groups, such as women fans and players.[13]
Some of those described by the media as WAGs have argued against the use of the term.[14] Rebekah Vardy reportedly stated that "Wag is a dated term because we're not defined by what our husbands do. We're individuals",[15] Others, such as Girls Aloud member Cheryl Cole, have similarly rejected the eponym and to emphasise their credentials as career women in their own right.[16]
There are many celebrities who have been described as WAGs after either marrying or dating a notable athlete. Some independently famous women described in this manner include La La Anthony, Victoria Beckham, Gisele Bündchen, Cheryl Cole, Ciara, Ayesha Curry, Hilary Duff, Kendall Jenner, Khloé Kardashian, Irina Shayk, Taylor Swift, Carrie Underwood, and Gabrielle Union.
The singer Jamelia (whose footballer boyfriend, Darren Byfield, played for Jamaica) drew a distinction between, on the one hand, those such as Victoria Beckham, who are "businesswoman", and Cole and Rooney, who "have a job" and those who, in her view, had the wrong "priorities" and simply spent their boyfriends' money.[17]
It's strange that you'd mention that they were "newly single" if you were discussing their awful Nazi views.
Doesn't sound like WAG was used as a term to discuss the political beliefs of the wives and girlfriends of athletes, but I'm no expert on the term; I had to look it up when you used it.
it was joke that their neo-Nazi partners got got.
Well especially when it's used in the Russian propaganda sense to mean "anyone who doesn't want to be invaded by Russia", like the way you have used it.
well in that case it was used to mean the Azov boys whos partners posted a ton of blatantly neo-Nazi ****. but liberals dont read. they dont challenge their ideas. and when they do, they delude themselves, and make up lies.
whatever lets them sleep well knowing that the USA has their back and all the dead in Ukraine and Gaza and Iraq and Libya and Syria are not the fault of your team.
tankies read and try to understand the world.
Footage of Victor discovering that the partners of Ukrainian men were posting awful things on instagram:
Broken YouTube Link
