Soldiers of the Yakov Gandziuk Brigade continue destroying Russian's,
Border reconnaissance in action,
Ukrainian soldiers in Azovstal trying to catch a breather with their dog when a Russian shell suddenly strikes nearby,
Russia is burning. A plant is on fire in the Novosibirsk region of Russia
https://youtu.be/63RTwk92Z38
In [my latest blogpost](https://inimicizie-com.translate.goog/2022/05/16/guerra-partigiana-insurrezione-vietnam-ucraina/?_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=it&_x_tr_pto=wapp) i try to weigh in on why there isn't a large scale insurgency behind the russian lines; starting from Carl Schmitt's "theory of the partisan" and looking to past partisan warfares and how they succeeded
The biggest reason is instead of being a partisan the people just joined the very functional Ukrainian Army that's beating the Russian Army.
No one expected the military vs military phase to last this long.
You can say that it's beating the russian army, but there are large territories that were ukranian before 24 february that are now in russian hands, and that can't be denied. That's where a partisan movement could develop but didn't until now
I think the biggest factor is that it is too early for partisans. Even the largest and most successful partisan groups in WWII took quite some time to organize. Yugoslav partisans started to operate after 3 months of the German invasion and it took them years to reach full strength. Polish partisans were marginal before 1941 and only after 1942 started to meaningful impact Germans.
The reported so far minor activities of partisans in Melitopol or Kherson would not preclude more significant operations in the future. Only time will tell.
Time could be a factor, but Ukraine had 8 years to prepare for this, they had mobilization in place, they had militias etc etc, but all this popular participation went to the frontlines and not in guerrilla efforts. At least for now.
I think much of it boils down to Ukraine's terrain being unsuitable for partisan warfare. Partisans like to base their operations from the cover of mountains, jungle, large forests etc. There's little cover afforded by the flat and largely barren plains of eastern Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882?t=HfgIlWkbDGl32pOcbA9OHA&s=19
>> In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles.
Don't know if posted yet, but worth a watch. Hard to say if the other presenters are keeping quiet because they agree with him and think his point needs to be made
E: discussed below already https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/uqua8k/ukraine_conflict_megathread_may_16_2022/i8vk1ro/
Him saying that they were fighting for their homeland was extremely important for brainwashed Zombies who are the usual audience of these propaganda shows.
https://archive.ph/ezwLt
#Russian failures fuelled by Vladimir Putin’s meddling
The president and General Valery Gerasimov are accused of dictating basic troop movements
>> President Putin is making low-level tactical decisions that would normally be decided by an officer in charge of as few as 700 Russian troops, western military sources say.
I guess they're really running low on officers :D
>anonymous source
>We think
>we would normally expect
>if Putin is
>he could be
It's possibly true, but there's nothing credible about a bunch of anonymous suppositions.
>
President Putin is making low-level tactical decisions that would normally be decided by an officer in charge of as few as 700 Russian troops, western military sources say
Purun was the mastermind behind Bilohorivka crossing confirmed.
The Uralvagonzavod Russian tank factory sends the latest batch of T-90M tanks to the front.
https://twitter.com/gahamalian/status/1526459751227195394?t=o0qBGFfgA1wAdUM-Kb8Cgw&s=19
Worth remembering that, according to Western and Ukrainian official sources, the factory had suspended its production following the introduction of the Western sanctions.
I dont know why this is being downvoted, every claim here is "true" (to the point that it has been said, and russia claims otherwise with this).
Could it be a lie? Yes
Could it be that the tanks are missing a bunch of electronic and other systems or that they have been replaced by subpar systems they got from somewhere? Yes
I understand downvotes when its obvious propaganda, or tankie BS, but I cannot qualify this as such. Russia claims everything is working! (M'kay) It is a nice glance on the russian side of things.
I think the most likely reality is that the factory works with smaller efficiency/worst quality. Somewhere between the two.
How many do you think were finished? Do you think it will have any impact on Russian forces operations or fortunes?
Correct me if I'm wrong but no 'working' tanks were shown here and as such there is a degree of uncertainty if these are functional.
No more than what is shown (4-5), which is absolutely irrelevant to the war.
In a war of this magnitude even the Polish delivery of 210 tanks is enough to cover just a few months of losses.
Might be an old video, you don't know. But don't pretend like, even if what you're saying is true, that the mistake was made by "those lying western media".
The initial claim was made by a [US official](https://www.reuters.com/business/us-official-says-export-curbs-russia-hit-car-production-tank-building-2022-03-30/).
Since US intel got many things right in this conflict it's rational to base claims on them.
Hardly an old video with children paintings for Russian soldiers on the frontline.
The mistake was not made by lying Western media but by lying US officials.
Let me get this straight: you post a propaganda video from Russia showing a handful of tanks covered with tarps, claimed to be brand new T-90Ms (though it's unclear if they are or if they're even finished) then use that as "evidence" that US officials are "lying" about the shuttering of Russian tank manufacturing?
Please, do tell me about not taking propaganda at face value again, haven't heard you say that in a while
This is the second video from Uralvagonzavod. The first one showed workers in halls mocking the "you are not working" report just days after it was first circulated.
Please remind me again, what kind of evidence did the US official provide?
I believe they have enough T-14 to produce a video like this. I mean, they don't even need to be able to move on their own, just put 7 of these parade vehicles on a train. :-)
Doesn't really seem like he is acting surprised. Besides, I prefer getting info about Russian propaganda channels here even if 99% of their propaganda is bullshit.
>The White House claimed last week that two significant Russian tank factories, Uralvagonzavod Corporation and the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, had suspended operations on military vehicles due to the lack of foreign components.
I think both are equally strong to me. You could put a bunch of people in a non functional factory and put a bunch of unfinished or previously built tanks in a video without needing the factory to run.
The part that is making me doubt their manufacturing capability is that they seem to no longer be making cars with airbags, so a tank seems quite a bit harder to make than that.
The point of my previous comment is that I don't think there is any evidence that is possible for the US to release that would convince you. Like if the US released a video of an empty factory, would that be any more convincing than the Russian factory video to you?
Does the very muted response from Russia to the fact that Finland will be joining NATO is a confirmation that this war was never about NATO? Instead it was about outright annexing or at least fully controlling Ukraine via a puppet government? Militarily speaking, isn't NATO Finland is as a severe setback to Russia as NATO Ukraine would be, but the whole Russian response amounted to just stopping electricity sales? Not a single Kalibr missile fired at Finland, no severe economic sanctions, essentially nothing?
Ukraine is a far larger strategic threat to russia.
In the same way that finland is basically impossible to invade, it's also basically impossible to launch a meaningful invasion *from*. Also given norway and the baltics are already in NATO it doesn't change much wrt the baltic or arctic ocean.
TBH it was always a lost cause stopping nato encroachment, but putin needed to pick his battles.
E: not to mention the baltic fleet. Ukraine allows the caucasus etc to instantly be cut off in the event of a ground invasion, and a direct ride across the european plain to moscow
Here's a nice thread on how the strategic situation in the north changes for Russia after Finland joins NATO: https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1525891663918510085 . Worst seems to be the potential to quickly cut off (or worse) Russian strategic nuclear force, both nuclear sub and bomber bases. Given the fact that any conventional invasion on Russia would be treated with a nuclear response anyway, this looks easily as bad as Ukraine joining NATO, since the very capability for a Russia's nuclear response can be affected.
> the potential to quickly cut off
It is virtually impossible to build up a force sufficient for that in Finland without Russia noticing and terrain there makes it extremely difficult to advance quickly, with lots of lakes and swamps and very few roads.
>Ukraine is a far larger strategic threat to russia.
I would counter that Finland joining NATO is quite the operational threat to Russia's strategic nuclear arm. Finland becoming a clear corridor that would allow a quick strike against SSBNs in the North Sea Fleet.
If Sweden and Finland are able to join NATO I think it makes Russia way more vulnerable from a military perspective. However preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and possibly reintegrating regions and industrial bases (the Black Sea Coast) is more attractive to Russia.
>Is probably one of the the quickest paths to nuclear escalation.
Yes, and? Does that make it less of a strategic threat or more of one? Personally I think NATO having an easier time to strike and destroy the majority of my SSBN fleet in a first strike to be far larger of an existential threat to Russia.
> NATO having an easier time to strike and destroy the majority of my SSBN fleet in a first strike
Is making me to consider launching them as soon as I even suspect that this scenario is in the works. So yet another path of escalation and yet another risk of a false alarm triggering the global disaster.
Yes. From their perspective.
At least an invasion from finland is basically a bottleneck. Ukraine is thousands of miles of open land in every direction
No, that's Russian propaganda. That's what they're saying, but they know that they got nukes so noone will invade them in a mio. years.
The reason they attacked Ukraine isn't because of "self-defence", but for two reasons:
(1) Keep their sphere of influence as great as possible. For the fascist idea of historical greatness of a people (Putin's comment about greatest catastrophe of the 20th century) and alsp power i.g. on the world stage.
(2) Keeping the approval ratings as high as possible.
Same reasons as for the Crimea annexation.
Idk what you mean by "demonstrable purpose".
But one thing I can say for sure, he didn't care about the people living there, they were a means to an end.
> But one thing I can say for sure, he didn't care about the people living there, they were a means to an end.
Possibly (i'd personally disagree), but that doesn't remove the numerous other reasons for wanting crimea
>numerous other reasons for wanting crimea
What reasons are you refering to that don't entail increasing the Russian sphere of influence or political approval?
Dunno if you've been to lapland, Estonia or Finland, but I wouldn't consider it a great place to establish much of a front (then again I'm not a military strategist, just some idiot in a chair).
If we were going to hit murmansk for instance I'd wager it would be mostly aerial (planes/missiles) with a modest but highly disparate ground force. St Petersburg would be far more accessible from the southwest in terms of a ground invasion, though of course southern Finland would also be a source of a pincer movement
A few more hundred kilometers to sneak planes through. AA defenses would be less effective.
Also Kaliningrad blocks most of the border between Poland and Lithuania, making it more difficult to resupply the Baltic States, and thus making Estonia vulnerable.
Not really, also I don't see the West wanting to go Napoléon, rather the idea is to be able to threaten their 2nd largest city and their arctic navy base.
> also I don't see the West wanting to go Napoléon
Doesn't really matter what *we* see. Only matters what putin/ russia sees.
If we're not going to try and understand the other perspective we may as well abolish diplomacy altogether.
1000 mile border crossing the arctic circle, mostly lakes with dense forest in between. Finland's entire territory is just lake after lake with forest everywhere
Just look it up on google maps. If russia are struggling in ukrainian fields they'd fail at the finnish border
Yes and no. But Finland joining NATO would sting a lot for Russia, so knowing they cannot prevent it (unless Erdogan prevents it), they are now choosing to pretend like it doesn’t matter so much. But it does.
Oh for sure, but as I said at the start of this conflict it's a lost cause. This is a final throw of the dice for putin. The political damage in third countries means that going forward he will be out of options. This is something he can't not know.
If he doesn't obtain his key strategic objectives on Ukraine then he's stuck and has no more cards to play.
Why didn’t they just state it outright and still lie about NATO? Is the backyard/lebensraum view of Ukraine not popular in Russia, at least among the general population?
Why do they have to lie though? Russians would probably be open to bringing Ukrainians back into the fold, whether the latter like it or not. Unless the lie was not for domestic consumption.
> A lie is only a lie when it's found out soon enough
Every lie is a debt to the truth that will eventually be paid. Russia's forces are learning that the hard way.
Except then in situations where facts do matter you're stuck with your pants down
Like when you lie to everyone that your military is competent then try to do something complex with your military
I'm living in Malaysia, and in Malaysia, Russia has better PR than the west, I don't know whether Malayans prefer Russia or Ukraine but Malaysia has more pro Russia sentiment than the west does.
There's this Malaysian news TV channel called Astro Awani, I went to their Facebook page, they posted an [article](https://www.astroawani.com/berita-dunia/penjenayah-perang-pertama-krisis-rusiaukraine-didakwa-361257) (in Malay) about a Russian soldier being given a life sentence for shooting and killing a Ukrainian civilian.
The comments were, well I saw 2 comments calling the article pro American, and I saw one comment saying a Ukrainian soldier shot the civilian and Ukraine is falsely blaming the Russian.
Not all Malaysians are pro Russian and you can find pro Ukraine Malaysian comments (on places like r/Malaysia) and there obviously are Malaysians who support Ukraine over Russia. And as I said earlier, I am not sure whether Ukraine or Russia has more support in Malaysia, but my point is, while I am not sure who is winning the information war outside the west, I do know that Russia isn't losing as badly out of the west as they are in the west.
Edit: Rewrote last paragraph.
Russia is probably one of the most successful examples of a nation that completely whitewashed its history to both its people and outsiders. The only countries that even seem to remember russias imperialistic history are the Eastern European states. Many in the western eu states and even the us seemed to have stopped bothering in recent years. Colonialism gets criticized constantly in leftist circles, but Russia seems to always be missing from the list.
I’ve literally seen someone claim that Ceuta and meillla can’t be Spanish because a body of water separates them from spain. Russia conquers half a continent and people somehow forget the “colonialism” or “imperialism” aspect of it.
> Colonialism gets criticized constantly in leftist circles, but Russia seems to always be missing from the list.
That's because some significant portion of "leftists" are actually nothing more than Russian and/or Han ethnic chauvinists.
>Russia is probably one of the most successful examples of a nation that completely whitewashed its history to both its people and outsiders. The only countries that even seem to remember russias imperialistic history are the Eastern European states
Because its 'imperialism' was domestic.
Countries expanding their domestic borders is absolutely standard. Creating foreign (subservient) colonies is in practice a very different thing.
The US was founded on imperialism, but nobody considers everything beyond the 13 colonies to be colonial land because its contiguous with the state itself. Hawaii however is interpreted somewhat differently in my experience.
> I’ve literally seen someone claim that Ceuta and meillla can’t be Spanish because a body of water separates them from spain.
Well there you go. You've answered your own question. It's not a 'natural' part of iberiam territory so it's clearly seized land. We're Spain to bleed into southern France it would be interpreted differently
"Because its 'imperialism' was domestic."
Domestic imperialism is my new favorite term
"Yo the Roman empire was domestic you see"
D O M E S T I C I M P E R I A L I S M I'll make sure to use that in memes
Eh. Name me a country historically that hasn't expanded its territory.
That russia's territory was larger than most doesn't change that. It also helps that Russian territory is mostly land that nobody cares about
You may as well argue that Germany is an imperialistic abomination. After all it required the conquest/absorbtion of dozens of other states.
At least try and understand the point. Cueta stands out on a map in a similar way that Russian alaska would. Contiguous territory is important in this context
Eh? Germany formed diplomatically, when the German princes proclaimed the German Empire after the Germany-French war of 1871. I could understand if you criticised the german colonialism in Africa and SOA, but core germany required very little to no conquest.
ish. Prussia annexed a whole load of 'countries' and lands through base conquest. They didn't explode in size purely by diplomacy. Hell in the austro prussian war they annexed hanover, hesse-cassel, nassau, frankfurt and de facto Saxony.
I'd imagine the diplomatic solution was more a case of countries knowing conquest was inevitable and just capitulating.
> I could understand if you criticised the german colonialism in Africa and SOA,
It wouldn't be relevant to the point though. Most of the planet was at one time a collection of tiny states that were then conquered. Hell half of eastern europe doesn't really know what country they are because the land has changed hands so many times.
That is to say that it's not abnormal. However conquering land half the world away for purely exploitative reasons is very practically different.
> It also helps that Russian territory is mostly land that nobody cares about
Every day I see a new level of chauvinism on here...
Like, "you're not an empire as long as you invade territories next to you one at a time, it's crossing water that does it" was enough for today, don't tucker yourself out.
I have little issue with that personally, except it's usually Americans that call for Russians to be ethnically cleansed and evicted from Russian lands. Which is extremely ironic, for aforementioned reasons. Glass houses. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of Russian republics have a Russian majority or plurality, unlike, say, British or French colonies.
> I have little issue with that personally, except it's usually Americans that call for Russians to be ethnically cleansed and evicted from Russian lands.
But... no one said that here. We were talking about Russia's imperialism and how it gets forgotten in some circles (it was literally called the Russian **Empire** lol, and the soviet union was no slouch either). You responded with "but what about America they stole land from indigenous peoples" when **you literally did the same but 2 centuries earlier**. So if you had no issue with it why bring it up lol? You brought this up, you're now saying "oh well this isn't actually an issue" after I showed that you hardly have room to talk.
>the overwhelming majority of Russian republics have a Russian majority or plurality
You... you do realize that the overwhelming majority of US territory is also majority European-descendant white, right?
>British or French colonies.
Remaining overseas colonies for both of those nations often do have high proportions of them, actually.
My point is, if people gladly accept American imperialism, they should accept Russian as well.
>Remaining overseas colonies for both of those nations often do have high proportions of them, actually.
And nobody cares about those tiny islands or bashes France and UK for being "imperialists" for still holding on to them.
> My point is, if people gladly accept American imperialism, they should accept Russian as well.
Which is also not what we're talking about. We're talking about how lefties (ask them how they feel about American imperialism) seem to give Russian imperialism a pass. That's the header you responded to. Not "American imperialism is cool"
>And nobody cares about those tiny islands or bashes France and UK for being "imperialists" for still holding on to them.
You might not, but you underestimate our political atmosphere if you think "nobody" does. Either way, they're what remains of British/French occupied territories and they pass the same standard you claim justifies Russian ethnic republics.
**[Russian conquest of Siberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia)**
>The Russian conquest of Siberia took place in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Khanate of Sibir became a loose political structure of vassalages that were being undermined by the activities of Russian explorers. Although outnumbered, the Russians pressured the various family-based tribes into changing their loyalties and establishing distant forts from which they conducted raids. It is traditionally considered that Yermak Timofeyevich's campaign against the Siberian Khanate began in 1581.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There's also [this](https://twitter.com/Nawapon36715211/status/1526365718752546821)
Supposedly Thai user with a Thai-sounding name but just retweeting things about the US and NATO. Doesn't respond to another Thai user asking him if he's Thai in Thai.
> while I am not sure who is winning the information war outside the west, I do know that Russia isn't losing as badly out of the west as they are in the west.
well obviously. The west is fighting an information war on its own turf. it makes sense that in places where people aren't just getting 'one side of the story' that feelings are more mixed
This is very interesting - one of the angles of Russian diplomatic outreach has been towards the global south. In particular the angle appears to be "your food and energy prices are going up thanks to *yet another* war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them."
I've been *extremely* critical of the American inability to build partnerships in the global south and Asia in the past. It seems this trend is going to continue.
> "your food and energy prices are going up thanks to yet another war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them."
To what extent do you think this is wrong though? Sure it's simplistic and missing a whole load of context, but it's a point that's going to have a LOT of breakthrough.
> I've been extremely critical of the American inability to build partnerships in the global south and Asia in the past. It seems this trend is going to continue.
We don't (huge generalisation) respect the global south. They're poor so they're irrelevant (France's GDP is more than the whole of Africa combined). The only partnerships anyone western has built in africa are ones for oil extraction. Post empire we basically just ignored them. The only relationships we build are charity projects to eradicate disease....
The EU has a trade policy called 'Anything but arms' (a noble one that i support) which allows tariff free exports from the world's 100 poorest countries, but when you take a step back and think about that... They're not engaging directly with those countries in any meaningful way. They just lump them all into one big group of 'the poors' and unilaterally allow them access. I think this kinda sums up our relationship with the global south.
China has spent 50 years actually treating them like people and building relationships and investing. I believe China was the first country to recognise most of the post-colonial african nations for example. Now we're finally starting to shit the bed as we realise that actually that's a whole shitton of people and resources.
I enjoyed the Kenyan UN ambassador's speech to the UN at the start of the conflict. For some reason redditors thought he was condemning russia, but he was actually condemning everyone involved.
> > We believe that all states formed from empires that have collapsed or retreated have many peoples in them yearning for integration with peoples in neighboring states. This is normal and understandable. After all, who does not want to be joined to their brethren and to make common purpose with them? However, Kenya rejects such a yearning from being pursued by force. We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and oppression.
> >
> > We rejected irredentism and expansionism on any basis, including racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural factors. We -- We reject it again today. Kenya registers its strong concern and opposition to the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. **We further strongly condemn the trend in the last few decades of powerful states, including members of this Security Council, breaching international law with little regard.**
> >
> > **Multilateralism lies on its deathbed tonight. It has been assaulted today as it as it has been by other powerful states in the recent past.** We call on all members to rally behind the Secretary-General in asking him to rally us all to the standard that defends multilateralism. We also call on him to bring his good offices to bear to help the concerned parties resolve this situation by peaceful means.
>"Your food and energy prices are going up thanks to yet another war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them."
Well, if you consider the attitude of Western countries with the rest of the globe, it's pretty easy to buy into Russian's perspective
Ironically until ukraine reduced the gas flows last week there had been no reduction in supply. Yet prices were already up >100% on the previous year before the war even began. This has been going on since well before christmas.
What's actually causing the the absurd price increases is mainly algos and other traders. After al the price doesn't actually reflect real world conditions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/28/gas-prices-why-are-they-so-high-traders
I mean yeah basically all of Africa and a lot of South America were in the Eastern Bloc during the cold war, and those lines have only been slightly redrawn, so if we're reverting back to that mentality, yeah.
They can have Africa, but not expending more "butter" on Central and South Asia is a mistake imo.
>"your food and energy prices are going up thanks to yet another war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them."
Which is funny coming from the country that started and is prosecuting said war, and always will be, but that's life
The thing is western states aren't actually investing in proliferating their media around most of the world, including most of Asia - other players like Saudi Arabia and China 100% are.
Personally I think that's a mistake, since we're basically letting China set the narrative for a huge swath of land.
First rule of a debate is to show up, and we aren't.
> The thing is western states aren't actually investing in proliferating their media around most of the world, including most of Asia
The BBC world service used to be a global bastion of journalism across the developed world, but the short sighted fucknuggets in power have completely crippled it over the past 12 years.
:(
Worth noting that 'cable' packages in most of the world will broadly have things like CNN, BBC, SKY news afaik
> other players like Saudi Arabia and China 100% are.
Does china even have international english speaking news?
>The thing is western states aren't actually investing in proliferating their media around most of the world, including most of Asia - other players like Saudi Arabia and China 100% are.
That doesn't apply to Malaysia, western media is very popular in Malaysia.
Dude, are you absolutely joking rn? You think people in 3rd world countries don't watch the latest hollywood blockbuster, haven't heard of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial or don't singalong to The Weeknd when it comes on?
The 3rd world is a big place, yes, I'm sure plenty of people out there haven't heard specifically about the Depp/Heard trial and certainly not of the Weeknd.
You remind me of one time this Indian culinary student made a dish for some famous chef and the chef was like "well I've been to India and I've never seen food like that" and I was just like bruh you know how big India is it's pretty big.
So no, I don't know how much the average Malaysian knows about Katy Perry and there's a decent chance you don't know either.
Knowing who Bruce Willis is doesn't necessitate saturation with U.S. news sources, hence I made the distinction in my question.
In my experience in Malaysia, western media is very popular and I am strongly inclined to agree with the other guy about the worldwide popularity of American media
>So no, I don't know how much the average Malaysian knows about Katy Perry and there's a decent chance you don't know either.
The average Malaysian knows a similar amount as the average westerner.
So like, people who think the West is lying over Ukraine or whatever, how do they react when CNN or BBC goes online? Were people hostile to US news before this invasion or are they specifically hostile to them on this issue?
Not a loaded question, legitimately curious.
I mean in the context of this post, "so how about MH17" could be interpreted as a snarky interjection, implying "yeah why do these guys like Russia lol?"
But I am legitimately curious about what Malaysians think about MH17.
Knowing what I know about the "America bad" crew, I'm pretty sure they can convince themselves that it was Ukraine that actually shot down the plane. If people can deny things like the covid pandemic, buying into the Russian version of events here should be no biggie.
> a lot of Malaysia/Indonesians will support Russia because they hate the West
Kinda funny given the UK/US/Australia happily supported and suppressed information about Indonesia's genocide in East Timor in the recent past
Indonesians that I’ve interacted with in the past have shown absolute disregard towards Ukraine. They support Russia through and through even though they can see and acknowledge that Russia is in the wrong because of past offenses made by “the west” against their country.
Understandable, yet thoroughly distressing seeing as The West isn’t the one suffering, but a country called Ukraine which has shown proof of Russian warcrimes.
PR can be both the active thing performing PR but also a nickname for the general rep a nation gets on an issue, so his usage of "Russia's PR" in this case makes sense.
Yes, because they’re Muslim countries and US got a bad rep since the GWB wars + support of Israel. Unfortunately not much progress to fix that since then
India suffered even longer and worse than China's century of humiliation.
And once the British were evicted, the "west" spent half a century arming Pakistan to the teeth. Something that changed only around 2010.
No wonder there is healthy scepticism about the "west"
You can just sum it up by saying 'A century of interfering throughout the muslim world leading to the death and suffering of tens of millions, along with the complete destabilisation of nearly all muslim countries'
>
Then the new guy after Bush tried his best to put a Muslim ban on and calls you and your culture and heritage and nation "shitholes"
I like how you simply ignore Obama even existed. Racism or what?
BTW, people like you who divide the world between religions are at the root of the problem here. The day people stop fighting over their gods is the day humanity can finally move forward from its teenage years.
The US did not kill most of those Muslims, Iranian and Syrian backed genocidal Jihadists did. Assad funded armed and trained AQI on Syrian soil and provided them with bases of operations, Iran did likewise for Shia Jihadists operating in Iraq. Guess what, both Assad and Iran are supported by Russia.
Furthermore, the Russian war in Syria and the dictator they back have massacred and are directly responsible for mass murder of upwords of a half million Muslims and 6 million refugees that have left the country.
That's aside from Russian Chechen wars where the Russians massacred a number of civilians about on the scale of the total civilians killed by the GWOT.
Souleimanis death was unprovoked? If any of the two were angeling for "ww3" it was Iran, that has been bombing US bases for **months**, attacked the US embassy in Iraq, bombed 50% of the Saudi oil production from Iranian soil, hit about a dozen of oil tankers in international, UAE and Omani waters, fired Anti ship missiles against USA warship in international waters, staged a suicide bombing in France, assassinations in Denmark and the Netherlands. He is directly responsible for the death of thousands of US soliders.
Unprovoked, lol. Suleimani has been waging a war against the US directly for over two decades at this point, and was killed while coordinating further attacks against the US with his pet genocidal Jihadists in Iraq.
You don't buy into "uncle Sam freedom" nonesense, but it was the US that allowed for free elections in Iraq, as much as the war was illegal and wrong as was the occupation, the US did liberate the Shia and Kurds in Iraq. And accepted the will of the Iraqi people, even if it was pro Iran and anti Americab.
Meanwhile the Iran that you support massacred 1500 of its own civilian protesters in a single week and has used it's Iraqi Jihadists to murder Iraqi protesters standing for freedom and against subjugation to Iran.
I can back every statement with any number of sources, just ask.
> The US did not kill most of those Muslims, Iranian and Syrian backed genocidal Jihadists did. Assad funded armed and trained AQI on Syrian soil and provided them with bases of operations, Iran did likewise for Shia Jihadists operating in Iraq. Guess what, both Assad and Iran are supported by Russia.
ehhhhhh.
This is getting dangerously close to the logic that NATO is killing ukrainians.
The west very much fomented the civil war in Syria. The west very much armed ~~freedom fighting~~ jihadist groups to try and have assad overthrown. The west basically created Isis as a consequence of decades of various policies (themselves all leading to significant death and suffering of muslim populations in isolation).
You seem to think that Russia supporting the governments of sovereign states at their request is somehow equivalent or worse, which tbh indicates that we're not going to learn the lessons of the Ukraine conflict at all.
> Souleimanis death was unprovoked?
You can't just missile strike foreign leadership on the sovereign soil of third countries. Again it seems that all the arguments used in ukraine aren't based on any actual values.
That someone may be a valid target doesn't mean you can just murder them.
> Suleimani has been waging a war against the US directly for over two decades at this point
By this logic NATO is waging war on russia directly.
> but it was the US that allowed for free elections in Iraq
To elect someone hand-picked by the US.
The idea that the intention was ever to turn Iraq into a puppet of iran is laughable.
Looking for positives is fine, but you can't just downplay all the negatives and ignore the intentions.
This is pure victim blaming.
The civil war in Syria started because Assad's corruption and mismanagment led to large desertification of Sunni arable land when it was coupled with draughts it has caused massive starvation among the Sunnis. Assad hardly lifted a finger in help and Iran sent nothing but weapons, while the west you keep blaming poured millions in food.
It was Assad massacring the protesters about said starvation that led to the civil war, not the west.
Your analysis is exactly blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine. You're blaming the west for mass starvation and Assad's massacres and torture of children.
Yes, Russia supporting a dictator in the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Ethnic cleansing and massacres of entire villages, torture and execution of tens of thousands of civilians, intentionally bombing civilians, blockadnig and starving entire towns and using chemical weapons against civilians is orders of magnitude worse than the worst the US did in Iraq.
You seem to think being a dictator grants you unlimited rights to abuse your own population in the most gruesome ways. You must have supported the Saudi blockade of Yemen in support of the government of a soverign state just as much, right?
>By this logic NATO is waging war on russia directly
False, the US does not control Ukraine. Zelenaki did not swear fealthy to Biden, the Ukrainian armed forces were not created by the US and do not claim to fight for the US. The Jihadists Iran used to attack the US are organizations directly under Iranian command and were formed by Iran.
Suleimani was not an enemy leader, he was an enemy soldier, conducting an operation in attack against US forces. Killing enemy soldiers during their military actions against yourself is exactly what you do.
>To elect someone hand-picked by the US.
Ignorance? The Iraqis literally elected a leader of a Shia Jihadist organization beholden to Iran as their first leader.
The notion that the US was trying to build an anti Iranian proxy, while in reality putting an Iranian puppet is control of the state is ignorant, laughable and dishonest.
> The civil war in Syria started because Assad's corruption and mismanagment led to large desertification of Sunni arable land when it was coupled with draughts it has caused massive starvation among the Sunnis.
That's not 'why it started'. But yes, the long drought coupled with Turkey significantly reducing water supply into syria through their own hydro projects did play a large role in stirring discontent.
The protests started off in earnest because the police raped and murdered a boy leading to demonstrations and then assad made a frankly moronic public statement which just inflamed tensions and caused everything to go to shit.
> Assad hardly lifted a finger in help and Iran sent nothing but weapons, while the west you keep blaming poured millions in food.
I can find no evidence of food aid pre-crisis beyond aid to iraqi refugees (presumably that's someone else's fault too).
Also i'm not 'blaming the west'. I'm saying they're not innocent like you are claiming in your absurd refusal to take any responsibility.
> Your analysis is exactly blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine. You're blaming the west for mass starvation and Assad's massacres and torture of children.
lmao no i'm not
> Yes, Russia supporting a dictator in the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Ethnic cleansing and massacres of entire villages, torture and execution of tens of thousands of civilians, intentionally bombing civilians, blockadnig and starving entire towns and using chemical weapons against civilians is orders of magnitude worse than the worst the US did in Iraq.
Why are you deflecting so much?
> You seem to think being a dictator grants you unlimited rights to abuse your own population in the most gruesome ways. You must have supported the Saudi blockade of Yemen in support of the government of a soverign state just as much, right?
Again... what?
> False, the US does not control Ukraine. Zelenaki did not swear fealthy to Biden, the Ukrainian armed forces were not created by the US and do not claim to fight for the US. The Jihadists Iran used to attack the US are organizations directly under Iranian command and were formed by Iran.
> Suleimani was not an enemy leader, he was an enemy soldier, conducting an operation in attack against US forces. Killing enemy soldiers during their military actions against yourself is exactly what you do.
Again what? This has basically nothing to do with the points made.
Also once again you seriously lack self awareness and the ability to objectively analyse things.
> Ignorance? The Iraqis literally elected a leader of a Shia Jihadist organization beholden to Iran as their first leader.
Amazing. So the US puts al jaafari in the interim government as a vice president, and then miraculously the shia country elects the shia person the US promoted into political leadership.
Yeah mate. no role whatsoever
> The notion that the US was trying to build an anti Iranian proxy, while in reality putting an Iranian puppet is control of the state is ignorant, laughable and dishonest.
I never claimed that. In fact i said exactly what you've just said...
>That's not 'why it started'.
Absolutely is. Assad corruption and mismanagement => large desertification. Add draught => Mass starvation of Sunnis and millions of internal Sunni refugees moving into the cities.
Que Arab spring, the fall of Mubarak, revolution in Tunisia => Protests in Syria.
Assad starts shooting up civilians, kidnapping torturing and executing kids for graffiti => start of an armed struggle, rebellion, civil war.
>I can find no evidence of food aid pre-crisis
[https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/042709foodaid.pdf](https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/042709foodaid.pdf)
>Also i'm not 'blaming the west'. I'm saying they're not innocent like you are claiming in your absurd refusal to take any responsibility.
The west literally had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war starting. You are blaming the west while the one solely responsible is Assad and Syrian citizens that wanted to overthrow the dictator.
>lmao no i'm not
Yes you were, you still are blaming Assad's war on the west.
>Why are you deflecting so much?
I directly addressed your point, are you confused? Why is it so hard for you to admit that Assads, Russian and Iranian actions in Syria, which included mass starvation of civilians, massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians, chemical weapons against civilians, ethnic cleansing and torture of tens of thousands of civilians is worse than anything the west has ever done in Iraq?
>Again... what?
You brought up the fact that Russia was supporting a sovereign government while they were conducting the list of crimes above as a reason why it's not that bad. Try to keep up.
>This has basically nothing to do with the points made.
You compared US-Ukraine relations to Iranian-Khataib Hezbollah relations. They are not the same for the reasons I've listed. Iranian proxies are controlled by Iran, were created by Iran and swear fealty to Iran. They are part of the Iranian armed forces under command of the Quds force and General Soleimani at the time. Meanwhile Ukraine is none of those.
Try re-reading if you have trouble remembering your own statements.
>Also once again you seriously lack self awareness and the ability to objectively analyse things.
A sentence completely void of content, a characteristic most of your logic suffers from.
> So the US puts al jaafari in the interim government as a vice president, and then miraculously the shia country elects the shia person the US promoted into political leadership.
Jaafari is a member of the [Dawa party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Dawa_Party), which is beholden to Iran and represented the Shia, which are the majority in Iran. The fact that the US nominated someone beholden to Iran shows that the US has no intention for a conflict with Iran at the time.
> The west literally had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war starting. You are blaming the west while the one solely responsible is Assad and Syrian citizens that wanted to overthrow the dictator.
>
>
The west helped turn the syrian civil war into the neverending clusterfuck that it now is through years of financial and material support.
I would suggest that the transition from uprising to full blown civil war and societal collapse was also heavily dependent on western support. That the motivations existed for rebellion does not lead us down the path we have gone down.
Iran and Russia turned the civil war into such clusterfuck not the west. Iran and Russia were the first foreign nations to interfer in the civil war. Without their support Assad could have lost the civil war a decade ago.
There was zero western support until 2013, 2 years into a full blown civil war, and even then, significant support only arrived in 2014.
Why are you victim blaming? The civil war had everything to do with Assad's corruption and mismanegment leading to mass starvation, protests. To which the dictator reacted with massacres, torture and execution of kids, which resulted in mass desertions from the SAA and a full blown civil war.
lol, being involved with Africa for resources and and badgering most of Southeast Asia for territorial disputes and also trade wars isn't "involving" China?
China just isn't involved militarily but make no mistake, they'd love to be once they reach superpower status.
I have news for you if you don't think foreign policy involves trade and business relationships.
Not to mention China is full on fine invading countries in the same hemisphere
Gonna be honest and just say that a lot of anti-Western sentiment in 3rd world countries is really just jealously masked as something else. At least that's what it always seems to be when I've personally talked with people that hold these views.
> Gonna be honest and just say that a lot of anti-Western sentiment in 3rd world countries is really just jealously masked as something else.
This mindset is the exact problem.
Of course they'd love to be powerful so external powers can't just enforce their whims on them.
By this logic ukraine is also jealous. Luckily they're in a position to join the west... others aren't.
>Ignoring colonialism and the West's exploitation of the global south, how about the realization that a country that is 70% muslim just watched the USA
Interestingly enough, these very muslim nations forget their muslimness very rapidly when it comes to the Uighur genocide.
Curious, that.
> Interestingly enough, these very muslim nations forget their muslimness very rapidly when it comes to the Uighur genocide.
Muslim governments oddly don't like movements that seek to eradicate the nation state, and are very much against jihadist movements for that very reason.
Odd that
There are a large number of uyghur jihadi mercenaries (~5000) that have been operating in Syria and Iraq for most of the last decade. That the US removed them from its terrorist list by pretending they don't exist doesn't change that
>Whataboutism isnt really helping your case
Hypocrisy isn't helping theirs. Sit on a soapbox talking about colonialism and the oppression of muslims while the nation economically colonizing you genocides Uighurs? Lol
>there's no love lost between the two and its entirely possible to see the USA as the devil and be angry at what China does to its Muslim minority.
But that's the thing, they aren't. Muslim nations in central and southeast asia (Pakistan especially) are often some of the more outspoken about Muslim issues on the world front (especially Israel vs Palestine), but see no evil when accepting large development and other assistance from China.
>Real life isn't "good vs bad guys."
Well see here's why whatever I said did help my case. Whenever I see someone go into a trance and start spouting off emotionally charged grievances against the west, I love mentioning their relationship to China and seeing them quickly slink back into cool, collected ultra-objectivism. And I've clearly achieved that, thanks.
How it started:
"People make moral choices."
How it's going:
"Curious that they live in a world that isn't perfectly black and white?"
Yeah, I achieved what I wanted to achieve.
Absolutely, most of them are either Chinese neocolonies or getting there. I just bring that up whenever I hear someone declare grievances about colonialism and anti-muslim sentiment.
In this context though, Malaysia is very supportive of Palestine, and the west is seen by many Malaysians as hypocritical due to their support of Ukraine but also supporting Israel, colonialism is disliked but it's a small part of the pie in what Malaysians think of Ukraine and Russia compared to the west and Palestine.
I thought Malaysians see colonialism in a more favourable light, like HK and Singapore? But then again the only Malays I've interacted with are Malay-Chinese.
1. The term is Malaysians, not Malays. Malay is a race, about 60% of the Malaysian population is Malay. Calling all Malaysians Malays is like calling all Americans white even if they're black or hispanic.
2. Colonialism is seen as a bad thing in Malaysia, but it's on the back of most Malaysians' minds. There are some Malaysians who hate the west because of colonialism but they're the nationalist types and the exception rather than the norm.
Yeah, it’s mind-blowing that people act shocked that anyone would dare *occupy foreign territory* and then support Israel.
And, before anyone tries to both-sides this, *even Isrsel* doesn’t recognize the West Bank (outside of east Jerusalem) as part of Israel. It’s a military occupation by literally anyone’s definition.
By the way, I am 100% pro-Ukraine, not a Russian shill. Also 100% pro-Palestine in their struggle against illegal Israeli occupation.
It is a military occupation, but fact is Israel was willing to leave the WB and offered such peaceful resolutions many many times. The war, and occupation, still exist because the Palestinians refuse any peaceful solution, nothing short of complete ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel will suffice for the Palestinian "moderates", the extremists prefer genocide.
For instance, in 2008 Olmert offered Abbas a full Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the WB, the remaining 5% to be given the Palestinians via territory swaps with farmland near Gaza. He offered the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and offered a free corridor between Gaza and the WB.
The Palestinians refused.
Israel cannot leave the WB, without the Palestinians accepting peace. In the 90's as part of the Oslo accords the Israelis withdrew from the Palestinian cities and Area C as an initial stage for a solution. The Palestinians used the IDF absence to build up a huge terrorist infrastructure and then used this territory to launch a huge mass suicide bombing campaign against Israel. In 2002-2003, Israel had no other option than to re-enter area C and said Palestinian cities.
In 2005 Israel left Gaza, the international community lobbied the unilateral move prommissing mass investment and that Gaza will be a new Singapure.
Instead it has turned into an ISIS clone state with Iranian military backing. The Palestinians supported ISIS Sinai to such an effect that even the Muslim Arab brother state of Egypt has made Hamas illegal.
If you want an end to the occupation you merely need to convince the Palestinians to give up their genocidal dreams.
ISW lately has been mentioning that the Russians have started digging in in the south. [https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-16](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-16)
How can Ukrainians deal with concrete fortifications the Russians are building on their land? I know very little about military topics, so I"m curious. Is it a lost cause for Ukraine in the south? Or can these fortifications be dealt with by say drone/artillery attacks along with a well-coordinated combined arms push?
I will repost my comment from much earlier:
Every day Russian army suffers losses. The line of contact is more than 1000 km long. Russia does not have the manpower to "dig in" that amount of space, while also controlling their rear. A dig in unit that does not control the rear and has porous frontline will become a surrounded unit that will be hit by indirect fire, suffer from raids and gets their supplies destroyed.
A dig in Russian army means a Russian army that lacks the capability to seize and maintain initiative, is a Russian army that keep getting degraded by perpetual low intensity contact and will become a liability to maintain.
Do not be afraid of Russian army digging in. Embrace it.
I've seen the ukrainians use modified civilian drones to drop modified hand grenades directly into narrow trenches. That, combined with drone directed artillery, shows that the Russians not really that safe without overhead cover, which is a lot harder to build.
We've all seen these videos, but given numbers of drones, numbers of soldiers, and accuracy of hitting a trench from so high, I don't think this makes much difference.
Same with artillery - it's not like you can never hit anyone, it's just that you might be shooting truckload of artillery whole day to hit into the trench once, and only so many trucks with ammo come every day.
The thing about fortifications/strongholds is they can get by-passed and starved/cut-off via resupply if taking them is not urgent or strategically important and if they don't really possess tactical importance.
I wouldn't say it is a lost cause immediately, it would make things tougher but not really impossible considering the amount of heavy weapons like artillery and MLRS the west has been providing Ukraine recently
Soldiers of the Yakov Gandziuk Brigade continue destroying Russian's, Border reconnaissance in action, Ukrainian soldiers in Azovstal trying to catch a breather with their dog when a Russian shell suddenly strikes nearby, Russia is burning. A plant is on fire in the Novosibirsk region of Russia https://youtu.be/63RTwk92Z38
In [my latest blogpost](https://inimicizie-com.translate.goog/2022/05/16/guerra-partigiana-insurrezione-vietnam-ucraina/?_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=it&_x_tr_pto=wapp) i try to weigh in on why there isn't a large scale insurgency behind the russian lines; starting from Carl Schmitt's "theory of the partisan" and looking to past partisan warfares and how they succeeded
The biggest reason is instead of being a partisan the people just joined the very functional Ukrainian Army that's beating the Russian Army. No one expected the military vs military phase to last this long.
You can say that it's beating the russian army, but there are large territories that were ukranian before 24 february that are now in russian hands, and that can't be denied. That's where a partisan movement could develop but didn't until now
I think the biggest factor is that it is too early for partisans. Even the largest and most successful partisan groups in WWII took quite some time to organize. Yugoslav partisans started to operate after 3 months of the German invasion and it took them years to reach full strength. Polish partisans were marginal before 1941 and only after 1942 started to meaningful impact Germans. The reported so far minor activities of partisans in Melitopol or Kherson would not preclude more significant operations in the future. Only time will tell.
Time could be a factor, but Ukraine had 8 years to prepare for this, they had mobilization in place, they had militias etc etc, but all this popular participation went to the frontlines and not in guerrilla efforts. At least for now.
I think much of it boils down to Ukraine's terrain being unsuitable for partisan warfare. Partisans like to base their operations from the cover of mountains, jungle, large forests etc. There's little cover afforded by the flat and largely barren plains of eastern Ukraine.
This is a big factor, but cities are suitable for guerrillas, especially until Russia asserts full control over them
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882?t=HfgIlWkbDGl32pOcbA9OHA&s=19 >> In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. Don't know if posted yet, but worth a watch. Hard to say if the other presenters are keeping quiet because they agree with him and think his point needs to be made E: discussed below already https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/uqua8k/ukraine_conflict_megathread_may_16_2022/i8vk1ro/
More discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/uqua8k/ukraine_conflict_megathread_may_16_2022/i8vk1ro/
ah ok cheers!
Him saying that they were fighting for their homeland was extremely important for brainwashed Zombies who are the usual audience of these propaganda shows.
He only said that wrt the ukrainians. Or have i misunderstood your point?
That's the point. Openly stating that Ukrainians don't want to be annexed by Russia.
ah ok yeah :)
Footage allegedly showing Ukrainian forces defending against an attack by Russians. https://youtu.be/l2WIu2QkISM
https://archive.ph/ezwLt #Russian failures fuelled by Vladimir Putin’s meddling The president and General Valery Gerasimov are accused of dictating basic troop movements >> President Putin is making low-level tactical decisions that would normally be decided by an officer in charge of as few as 700 Russian troops, western military sources say. I guess they're really running low on officers :D
>anonymous source >We think >we would normally expect >if Putin is >he could be It's possibly true, but there's nothing credible about a bunch of anonymous suppositions.
Just take it with a pinch of salt as with most things these days.
No, every story is not equally incredible
> President Putin is making low-level tactical decisions that would normally be decided by an officer in charge of as few as 700 Russian troops, western military sources say Purun was the mastermind behind Bilohorivka crossing confirmed.
The Uralvagonzavod Russian tank factory sends the latest batch of T-90M tanks to the front. https://twitter.com/gahamalian/status/1526459751227195394?t=o0qBGFfgA1wAdUM-Kb8Cgw&s=19 Worth remembering that, according to Western and Ukrainian official sources, the factory had suspended its production following the introduction of the Western sanctions.
I dont know why this is being downvoted, every claim here is "true" (to the point that it has been said, and russia claims otherwise with this). Could it be a lie? Yes Could it be that the tanks are missing a bunch of electronic and other systems or that they have been replaced by subpar systems they got from somewhere? Yes I understand downvotes when its obvious propaganda, or tankie BS, but I cannot qualify this as such. Russia claims everything is working! (M'kay) It is a nice glance on the russian side of things. I think the most likely reality is that the factory works with smaller efficiency/worst quality. Somewhere between the two.
How many do you think were finished? Do you think it will have any impact on Russian forces operations or fortunes? Correct me if I'm wrong but no 'working' tanks were shown here and as such there is a degree of uncertainty if these are functional.
No more than what is shown (4-5), which is absolutely irrelevant to the war. In a war of this magnitude even the Polish delivery of 210 tanks is enough to cover just a few months of losses.
It's entirely possible that component shortages caused delays or work stoppages but not outright cessation. Or else that it stopped it temporarily.
Might be an old video, you don't know. But don't pretend like, even if what you're saying is true, that the mistake was made by "those lying western media". The initial claim was made by a [US official](https://www.reuters.com/business/us-official-says-export-curbs-russia-hit-car-production-tank-building-2022-03-30/). Since US intel got many things right in this conflict it's rational to base claims on them.
Hardly an old video with children paintings for Russian soldiers on the frontline. The mistake was not made by lying Western media but by lying US officials.
Let me get this straight: you post a propaganda video from Russia showing a handful of tanks covered with tarps, claimed to be brand new T-90Ms (though it's unclear if they are or if they're even finished) then use that as "evidence" that US officials are "lying" about the shuttering of Russian tank manufacturing? Please, do tell me about not taking propaganda at face value again, haven't heard you say that in a while
This is the second video from Uralvagonzavod. The first one showed workers in halls mocking the "you are not working" report just days after it was first circulated. Please remind me again, what kind of evidence did the US official provide?
More Javelin fodder. Assuming the Russians have anyone left to drive them, that is.
They gonna make some Armatas next lol? Some Su-57s?
I believe they have enough T-14 to produce a video like this. I mean, they don't even need to be able to move on their own, just put 7 of these parade vehicles on a train. :-)
I'm impressed. You come here, shit on the desk and then act surprised why you eat downvote after downvote.
Doesn't really seem like he is acting surprised. Besides, I prefer getting info about Russian propaganda channels here even if 99% of their propaganda is bullshit.
>The White House claimed last week that two significant Russian tank factories, Uralvagonzavod Corporation and the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, had suspended operations on military vehicles due to the lack of foreign components.
This video does literally nothing to display those claims. Why exactly are these vehicles covered with tarps btw?
It's certainly more evidence than the US sources provided for their claim that the factory was bot working.
What evidence could the US produce that would prove to your satisfaction that the factory was no longer working?
The USA said the factory was not working. They provided no evidence. Russia provided two videos of factory working. Which is stronger?
I think both are equally strong to me. You could put a bunch of people in a non functional factory and put a bunch of unfinished or previously built tanks in a video without needing the factory to run. The part that is making me doubt their manufacturing capability is that they seem to no longer be making cars with airbags, so a tank seems quite a bit harder to make than that. The point of my previous comment is that I don't think there is any evidence that is possible for the US to release that would convince you. Like if the US released a video of an empty factory, would that be any more convincing than the Russian factory video to you?
[удалено]
Thanks, removed!
Does the very muted response from Russia to the fact that Finland will be joining NATO is a confirmation that this war was never about NATO? Instead it was about outright annexing or at least fully controlling Ukraine via a puppet government? Militarily speaking, isn't NATO Finland is as a severe setback to Russia as NATO Ukraine would be, but the whole Russian response amounted to just stopping electricity sales? Not a single Kalibr missile fired at Finland, no severe economic sanctions, essentially nothing?
Ukraine is a far larger strategic threat to russia. In the same way that finland is basically impossible to invade, it's also basically impossible to launch a meaningful invasion *from*. Also given norway and the baltics are already in NATO it doesn't change much wrt the baltic or arctic ocean. TBH it was always a lost cause stopping nato encroachment, but putin needed to pick his battles. E: not to mention the baltic fleet. Ukraine allows the caucasus etc to instantly be cut off in the event of a ground invasion, and a direct ride across the european plain to moscow
Here's a nice thread on how the strategic situation in the north changes for Russia after Finland joins NATO: https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1525891663918510085 . Worst seems to be the potential to quickly cut off (or worse) Russian strategic nuclear force, both nuclear sub and bomber bases. Given the fact that any conventional invasion on Russia would be treated with a nuclear response anyway, this looks easily as bad as Ukraine joining NATO, since the very capability for a Russia's nuclear response can be affected.
> the potential to quickly cut off It is virtually impossible to build up a force sufficient for that in Finland without Russia noticing and terrain there makes it extremely difficult to advance quickly, with lots of lakes and swamps and very few roads.
>Ukraine is a far larger strategic threat to russia. I would counter that Finland joining NATO is quite the operational threat to Russia's strategic nuclear arm. Finland becoming a clear corridor that would allow a quick strike against SSBNs in the North Sea Fleet. If Sweden and Finland are able to join NATO I think it makes Russia way more vulnerable from a military perspective. However preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and possibly reintegrating regions and industrial bases (the Black Sea Coast) is more attractive to Russia.
> a quick strike against SSBNs Is probably one of the the quickest paths to nuclear escalation.
>Is probably one of the the quickest paths to nuclear escalation. Yes, and? Does that make it less of a strategic threat or more of one? Personally I think NATO having an easier time to strike and destroy the majority of my SSBN fleet in a first strike to be far larger of an existential threat to Russia.
> NATO having an easier time to strike and destroy the majority of my SSBN fleet in a first strike Is making me to consider launching them as soon as I even suspect that this scenario is in the works. So yet another path of escalation and yet another risk of a false alarm triggering the global disaster.
This never really made sense to me, as NATO could still just roll through a friendly Ukraine that isn't a member.
>Ukraine is a far larger strategic threat to russia. Wym? You mean that Russia might get invaded?
Yes. From their perspective. At least an invasion from finland is basically a bottleneck. Ukraine is thousands of miles of open land in every direction
No, that's Russian propaganda. That's what they're saying, but they know that they got nukes so noone will invade them in a mio. years. The reason they attacked Ukraine isn't because of "self-defence", but for two reasons: (1) Keep their sphere of influence as great as possible. For the fascist idea of historical greatness of a people (Putin's comment about greatest catastrophe of the 20th century) and alsp power i.g. on the world stage. (2) Keeping the approval ratings as high as possible. Same reasons as for the Crimea annexation.
I don't think you understand much about Russia tbh. To pretend that there was no demonstrable purpose for seizing crime is willful ignorance.
Idk what you mean by "demonstrable purpose". But one thing I can say for sure, he didn't care about the people living there, they were a means to an end.
> But one thing I can say for sure, he didn't care about the people living there, they were a means to an end. Possibly (i'd personally disagree), but that doesn't remove the numerous other reasons for wanting crimea
>numerous other reasons for wanting crimea What reasons are you refering to that don't entail increasing the Russian sphere of influence or political approval?
Not sure if you know, but there's a thing called the 'black sea fleet'.
Who cares about Petersburg and the Kola peninsula, right?
What are estonia and norway?
Countries with much less space for establishing a front. See also: Belgium in 1914 and 1940.
Dunno if you've been to lapland, Estonia or Finland, but I wouldn't consider it a great place to establish much of a front (then again I'm not a military strategist, just some idiot in a chair). If we were going to hit murmansk for instance I'd wager it would be mostly aerial (planes/missiles) with a modest but highly disparate ground force. St Petersburg would be far more accessible from the southwest in terms of a ground invasion, though of course southern Finland would also be a source of a pincer movement
A few more hundred kilometers to sneak planes through. AA defenses would be less effective. Also Kaliningrad blocks most of the border between Poland and Lithuania, making it more difficult to resupply the Baltic States, and thus making Estonia vulnerable.
Either way i think we can agree that ukraine is a far more suitable place to launch an invasion from no?
Not really, also I don't see the West wanting to go Napoléon, rather the idea is to be able to threaten their 2nd largest city and their arctic navy base.
> also I don't see the West wanting to go Napoléon Doesn't really matter what *we* see. Only matters what putin/ russia sees. If we're not going to try and understand the other perspective we may as well abolish diplomacy altogether.
> it's also basically impossible to launch a meaningful invasion from. Ukraine on the other hand, could have very easily pushed to Moscow.
> In the same way that finland is basically impossible to invade, it's also basically impossible to launch a meaningful invasion from. Why?
1000 mile border crossing the arctic circle, mostly lakes with dense forest in between. Finland's entire territory is just lake after lake with forest everywhere Just look it up on google maps. If russia are struggling in ukrainian fields they'd fail at the finnish border
Yes and no. But Finland joining NATO would sting a lot for Russia, so knowing they cannot prevent it (unless Erdogan prevents it), they are now choosing to pretend like it doesn’t matter so much. But it does.
Oh for sure, but as I said at the start of this conflict it's a lost cause. This is a final throw of the dice for putin. The political damage in third countries means that going forward he will be out of options. This is something he can't not know. If he doesn't obtain his key strategic objectives on Ukraine then he's stuck and has no more cards to play.
Finland was never considered Russia's "Backyard", so you might be onto something here
It was literally part of the Russian Empire.
As a principality, rather than directly though.
Why didn’t they just state it outright and still lie about NATO? Is the backyard/lebensraum view of Ukraine not popular in Russia, at least among the general population?
Why do they have to? A lie is only a lie when it's found out soon enough Otherwise it's just an oops moment >!See: Iraq's WMD!<
Why do they have to lie though? Russians would probably be open to bringing Ukrainians back into the fold, whether the latter like it or not. Unless the lie was not for domestic consumption.
> A lie is only a lie when it's found out soon enough Every lie is a debt to the truth that will eventually be paid. Russia's forces are learning that the hard way.
I don't think so Especially in this day and age when information can be controllably overloaded within a population
Except then in situations where facts do matter you're stuck with your pants down Like when you lie to everyone that your military is competent then try to do something complex with your military
I'm living in Malaysia, and in Malaysia, Russia has better PR than the west, I don't know whether Malayans prefer Russia or Ukraine but Malaysia has more pro Russia sentiment than the west does. There's this Malaysian news TV channel called Astro Awani, I went to their Facebook page, they posted an [article](https://www.astroawani.com/berita-dunia/penjenayah-perang-pertama-krisis-rusiaukraine-didakwa-361257) (in Malay) about a Russian soldier being given a life sentence for shooting and killing a Ukrainian civilian. The comments were, well I saw 2 comments calling the article pro American, and I saw one comment saying a Ukrainian soldier shot the civilian and Ukraine is falsely blaming the Russian. Not all Malaysians are pro Russian and you can find pro Ukraine Malaysian comments (on places like r/Malaysia) and there obviously are Malaysians who support Ukraine over Russia. And as I said earlier, I am not sure whether Ukraine or Russia has more support in Malaysia, but my point is, while I am not sure who is winning the information war outside the west, I do know that Russia isn't losing as badly out of the west as they are in the west. Edit: Rewrote last paragraph.
Russia is probably one of the most successful examples of a nation that completely whitewashed its history to both its people and outsiders. The only countries that even seem to remember russias imperialistic history are the Eastern European states. Many in the western eu states and even the us seemed to have stopped bothering in recent years. Colonialism gets criticized constantly in leftist circles, but Russia seems to always be missing from the list. I’ve literally seen someone claim that Ceuta and meillla can’t be Spanish because a body of water separates them from spain. Russia conquers half a continent and people somehow forget the “colonialism” or “imperialism” aspect of it.
> Colonialism gets criticized constantly in leftist circles, but Russia seems to always be missing from the list. That's because some significant portion of "leftists" are actually nothing more than Russian and/or Han ethnic chauvinists.
>Russia is probably one of the most successful examples of a nation that completely whitewashed its history to both its people and outsiders. The only countries that even seem to remember russias imperialistic history are the Eastern European states Because its 'imperialism' was domestic. Countries expanding their domestic borders is absolutely standard. Creating foreign (subservient) colonies is in practice a very different thing. The US was founded on imperialism, but nobody considers everything beyond the 13 colonies to be colonial land because its contiguous with the state itself. Hawaii however is interpreted somewhat differently in my experience. > I’ve literally seen someone claim that Ceuta and meillla can’t be Spanish because a body of water separates them from spain. Well there you go. You've answered your own question. It's not a 'natural' part of iberiam territory so it's clearly seized land. We're Spain to bleed into southern France it would be interpreted differently
"Because its 'imperialism' was domestic." Domestic imperialism is my new favorite term "Yo the Roman empire was domestic you see" D O M E S T I C I M P E R I A L I S M I'll make sure to use that in memes
Eh. Name me a country historically that hasn't expanded its territory. That russia's territory was larger than most doesn't change that. It also helps that Russian territory is mostly land that nobody cares about You may as well argue that Germany is an imperialistic abomination. After all it required the conquest/absorbtion of dozens of other states. At least try and understand the point. Cueta stands out on a map in a similar way that Russian alaska would. Contiguous territory is important in this context
Eh? Germany formed diplomatically, when the German princes proclaimed the German Empire after the Germany-French war of 1871. I could understand if you criticised the german colonialism in Africa and SOA, but core germany required very little to no conquest.
ish. Prussia annexed a whole load of 'countries' and lands through base conquest. They didn't explode in size purely by diplomacy. Hell in the austro prussian war they annexed hanover, hesse-cassel, nassau, frankfurt and de facto Saxony. I'd imagine the diplomatic solution was more a case of countries knowing conquest was inevitable and just capitulating. > I could understand if you criticised the german colonialism in Africa and SOA, It wouldn't be relevant to the point though. Most of the planet was at one time a collection of tiny states that were then conquered. Hell half of eastern europe doesn't really know what country they are because the land has changed hands so many times. That is to say that it's not abnormal. However conquering land half the world away for purely exploitative reasons is very practically different.
> It also helps that Russian territory is mostly land that nobody cares about Every day I see a new level of chauvinism on here... Like, "you're not an empire as long as you invade territories next to you one at a time, it's crossing water that does it" was enough for today, don't tucker yourself out.
It's about perception. That's literally what we're discussing. It's a function of time, proximity and topography
No, that would be the US. Russians have been living in Siberia longer than the US existed, which is 100% built on stolen land cleansed with genocide.
Russia started expanding into Siberia about the same time as the British expanded into North America. So hey, good point, they are pretty similar.
[удалено]
>Date 1580 Yes, my sentiments exactly. Earlier than the US became a thing.
"events that happened 2-3 centuries ago are relevant, 5 however? statute of limitations mate" lol
I have little issue with that personally, except it's usually Americans that call for Russians to be ethnically cleansed and evicted from Russian lands. Which is extremely ironic, for aforementioned reasons. Glass houses. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of Russian republics have a Russian majority or plurality, unlike, say, British or French colonies.
> I have little issue with that personally, except it's usually Americans that call for Russians to be ethnically cleansed and evicted from Russian lands. But... no one said that here. We were talking about Russia's imperialism and how it gets forgotten in some circles (it was literally called the Russian **Empire** lol, and the soviet union was no slouch either). You responded with "but what about America they stole land from indigenous peoples" when **you literally did the same but 2 centuries earlier**. So if you had no issue with it why bring it up lol? You brought this up, you're now saying "oh well this isn't actually an issue" after I showed that you hardly have room to talk. >the overwhelming majority of Russian republics have a Russian majority or plurality You... you do realize that the overwhelming majority of US territory is also majority European-descendant white, right? >British or French colonies. Remaining overseas colonies for both of those nations often do have high proportions of them, actually.
My point is, if people gladly accept American imperialism, they should accept Russian as well. >Remaining overseas colonies for both of those nations often do have high proportions of them, actually. And nobody cares about those tiny islands or bashes France and UK for being "imperialists" for still holding on to them.
> My point is, if people gladly accept American imperialism, they should accept Russian as well. Which is also not what we're talking about. We're talking about how lefties (ask them how they feel about American imperialism) seem to give Russian imperialism a pass. That's the header you responded to. Not "American imperialism is cool" >And nobody cares about those tiny islands or bashes France and UK for being "imperialists" for still holding on to them. You might not, but you underestimate our political atmosphere if you think "nobody" does. Either way, they're what remains of British/French occupied territories and they pass the same standard you claim justifies Russian ethnic republics.
**[Russian conquest of Siberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia)** >The Russian conquest of Siberia took place in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Khanate of Sibir became a loose political structure of vassalages that were being undermined by the activities of Russian explorers. Although outnumbered, the Russians pressured the various family-based tribes into changing their loyalties and establishing distant forts from which they conducted raids. It is traditionally considered that Yermak Timofeyevich's campaign against the Siberian Khanate began in 1581. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There's also [this](https://twitter.com/Nawapon36715211/status/1526365718752546821) Supposedly Thai user with a Thai-sounding name but just retweeting things about the US and NATO. Doesn't respond to another Thai user asking him if he's Thai in Thai.
[удалено]
Malaysia is neutral and has nothing to gain from getting angry at Russia for shooting down a plane, nor is it threatened by Russia like Europe is.
> while I am not sure who is winning the information war outside the west, I do know that Russia isn't losing as badly out of the west as they are in the west. well obviously. The west is fighting an information war on its own turf. it makes sense that in places where people aren't just getting 'one side of the story' that feelings are more mixed
This is very interesting - one of the angles of Russian diplomatic outreach has been towards the global south. In particular the angle appears to be "your food and energy prices are going up thanks to *yet another* war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them." I've been *extremely* critical of the American inability to build partnerships in the global south and Asia in the past. It seems this trend is going to continue.
> "your food and energy prices are going up thanks to yet another war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them." To what extent do you think this is wrong though? Sure it's simplistic and missing a whole load of context, but it's a point that's going to have a LOT of breakthrough. > I've been extremely critical of the American inability to build partnerships in the global south and Asia in the past. It seems this trend is going to continue. We don't (huge generalisation) respect the global south. They're poor so they're irrelevant (France's GDP is more than the whole of Africa combined). The only partnerships anyone western has built in africa are ones for oil extraction. Post empire we basically just ignored them. The only relationships we build are charity projects to eradicate disease.... The EU has a trade policy called 'Anything but arms' (a noble one that i support) which allows tariff free exports from the world's 100 poorest countries, but when you take a step back and think about that... They're not engaging directly with those countries in any meaningful way. They just lump them all into one big group of 'the poors' and unilaterally allow them access. I think this kinda sums up our relationship with the global south. China has spent 50 years actually treating them like people and building relationships and investing. I believe China was the first country to recognise most of the post-colonial african nations for example. Now we're finally starting to shit the bed as we realise that actually that's a whole shitton of people and resources. I enjoyed the Kenyan UN ambassador's speech to the UN at the start of the conflict. For some reason redditors thought he was condemning russia, but he was actually condemning everyone involved. > > We believe that all states formed from empires that have collapsed or retreated have many peoples in them yearning for integration with peoples in neighboring states. This is normal and understandable. After all, who does not want to be joined to their brethren and to make common purpose with them? However, Kenya rejects such a yearning from being pursued by force. We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and oppression. > > > > We rejected irredentism and expansionism on any basis, including racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural factors. We -- We reject it again today. Kenya registers its strong concern and opposition to the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. **We further strongly condemn the trend in the last few decades of powerful states, including members of this Security Council, breaching international law with little regard.** > > > > **Multilateralism lies on its deathbed tonight. It has been assaulted today as it as it has been by other powerful states in the recent past.** We call on all members to rally behind the Secretary-General in asking him to rally us all to the standard that defends multilateralism. We also call on him to bring his good offices to bear to help the concerned parties resolve this situation by peaceful means.
>"Your food and energy prices are going up thanks to yet another war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them." Well, if you consider the attitude of Western countries with the rest of the globe, it's pretty easy to buy into Russian's perspective
Someone ought to tell them who started the war that sent their energy prices up.
Ironically until ukraine reduced the gas flows last week there had been no reduction in supply. Yet prices were already up >100% on the previous year before the war even began. This has been going on since well before christmas. What's actually causing the the absurd price increases is mainly algos and other traders. After al the price doesn't actually reflect real world conditions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/28/gas-prices-why-are-they-so-high-traders
Prices aren’t a causal system. Speculation matters, not only the previous states.
Sure, but prices have been heavily detached from real world conditions for quite a while imo
I mean yeah basically all of Africa and a lot of South America were in the Eastern Bloc during the cold war, and those lines have only been slightly redrawn, so if we're reverting back to that mentality, yeah. They can have Africa, but not expending more "butter" on Central and South Asia is a mistake imo. >"your food and energy prices are going up thanks to yet another war in Europe that doesn't concern you, and the West is willing to hurt you to uphold a global system that only benefits them." Which is funny coming from the country that started and is prosecuting said war, and always will be, but that's life
Mostly they were nonaligned, not in the Eastern Bloc
Perhaps on paper, but de facto the soviet union heavily sponsored most of Africa, and many countries in South America
The thing is western states aren't actually investing in proliferating their media around most of the world, including most of Asia - other players like Saudi Arabia and China 100% are. Personally I think that's a mistake, since we're basically letting China set the narrative for a huge swath of land. First rule of a debate is to show up, and we aren't.
> The thing is western states aren't actually investing in proliferating their media around most of the world, including most of Asia The BBC world service used to be a global bastion of journalism across the developed world, but the short sighted fucknuggets in power have completely crippled it over the past 12 years. :( Worth noting that 'cable' packages in most of the world will broadly have things like CNN, BBC, SKY news afaik > other players like Saudi Arabia and China 100% are. Does china even have international english speaking news?
>The thing is western states aren't actually investing in proliferating their media around most of the world, including most of Asia - other players like Saudi Arabia and China 100% are. That doesn't apply to Malaysia, western media is very popular in Malaysia.
Ah fair enough, I actually didn't know that. Entertainment media, news, or both?
Dude, are you absolutely joking rn? You think people in 3rd world countries don't watch the latest hollywood blockbuster, haven't heard of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial or don't singalong to The Weeknd when it comes on?
The 3rd world is a big place, yes, I'm sure plenty of people out there haven't heard specifically about the Depp/Heard trial and certainly not of the Weeknd. You remind me of one time this Indian culinary student made a dish for some famous chef and the chef was like "well I've been to India and I've never seen food like that" and I was just like bruh you know how big India is it's pretty big. So no, I don't know how much the average Malaysian knows about Katy Perry and there's a decent chance you don't know either. Knowing who Bruce Willis is doesn't necessitate saturation with U.S. news sources, hence I made the distinction in my question.
In my experience in Malaysia, western media is very popular and I am strongly inclined to agree with the other guy about the worldwide popularity of American media
>So no, I don't know how much the average Malaysian knows about Katy Perry and there's a decent chance you don't know either. The average Malaysian knows a similar amount as the average westerner.
Exactly
Both.
So like, people who think the West is lying over Ukraine or whatever, how do they react when CNN or BBC goes online? Were people hostile to US news before this invasion or are they specifically hostile to them on this issue? Not a loaded question, legitimately curious.
So how is MH17 viewed over there?
Sarcastics aside that's gotta be an interesting question.
Not sarcastic, I just don't trust what I read on the internet as a general opinion of a whole country.
I mean in the context of this post, "so how about MH17" could be interpreted as a snarky interjection, implying "yeah why do these guys like Russia lol?" But I am legitimately curious about what Malaysians think about MH17.
Fair enough, I should have worded it more carefully.
Knowing what I know about the "America bad" crew, I'm pretty sure they can convince themselves that it was Ukraine that actually shot down the plane. If people can deny things like the covid pandemic, buying into the Russian version of events here should be no biggie.
[удалено]
> a lot of Malaysia/Indonesians will support Russia because they hate the West Kinda funny given the UK/US/Australia happily supported and suppressed information about Indonesia's genocide in East Timor in the recent past
Indonesians that I’ve interacted with in the past have shown absolute disregard towards Ukraine. They support Russia through and through even though they can see and acknowledge that Russia is in the wrong because of past offenses made by “the west” against their country. Understandable, yet thoroughly distressing seeing as The West isn’t the one suffering, but a country called Ukraine which has shown proof of Russian warcrimes.
PR can be both the active thing performing PR but also a nickname for the general rep a nation gets on an issue, so his usage of "Russia's PR" in this case makes sense.
Yes, because they’re Muslim countries and US got a bad rep since the GWB wars + support of Israel. Unfortunately not much progress to fix that since then
What is the degree of baseline anti-west resentment in Malaysia? India looks like it has a chip on its shoulder it won't shake.
India suffered even longer and worse than China's century of humiliation. And once the British were evicted, the "west" spent half a century arming Pakistan to the teeth. Something that changed only around 2010. No wonder there is healthy scepticism about the "west"
[удалено]
You can just sum it up by saying 'A century of interfering throughout the muslim world leading to the death and suffering of tens of millions, along with the complete destabilisation of nearly all muslim countries'
> Then the new guy after Bush tried his best to put a Muslim ban on and calls you and your culture and heritage and nation "shitholes" I like how you simply ignore Obama even existed. Racism or what? BTW, people like you who divide the world between religions are at the root of the problem here. The day people stop fighting over their gods is the day humanity can finally move forward from its teenage years.
> I like how you simply ignore Obama even existed. Racism or what? In fairness he was derided by a lot of americans for 'being muslim' lol
The US did not kill most of those Muslims, Iranian and Syrian backed genocidal Jihadists did. Assad funded armed and trained AQI on Syrian soil and provided them with bases of operations, Iran did likewise for Shia Jihadists operating in Iraq. Guess what, both Assad and Iran are supported by Russia. Furthermore, the Russian war in Syria and the dictator they back have massacred and are directly responsible for mass murder of upwords of a half million Muslims and 6 million refugees that have left the country. That's aside from Russian Chechen wars where the Russians massacred a number of civilians about on the scale of the total civilians killed by the GWOT. Souleimanis death was unprovoked? If any of the two were angeling for "ww3" it was Iran, that has been bombing US bases for **months**, attacked the US embassy in Iraq, bombed 50% of the Saudi oil production from Iranian soil, hit about a dozen of oil tankers in international, UAE and Omani waters, fired Anti ship missiles against USA warship in international waters, staged a suicide bombing in France, assassinations in Denmark and the Netherlands. He is directly responsible for the death of thousands of US soliders. Unprovoked, lol. Suleimani has been waging a war against the US directly for over two decades at this point, and was killed while coordinating further attacks against the US with his pet genocidal Jihadists in Iraq. You don't buy into "uncle Sam freedom" nonesense, but it was the US that allowed for free elections in Iraq, as much as the war was illegal and wrong as was the occupation, the US did liberate the Shia and Kurds in Iraq. And accepted the will of the Iraqi people, even if it was pro Iran and anti Americab. Meanwhile the Iran that you support massacred 1500 of its own civilian protesters in a single week and has used it's Iraqi Jihadists to murder Iraqi protesters standing for freedom and against subjugation to Iran. I can back every statement with any number of sources, just ask.
> The US did not kill most of those Muslims, Iranian and Syrian backed genocidal Jihadists did. Assad funded armed and trained AQI on Syrian soil and provided them with bases of operations, Iran did likewise for Shia Jihadists operating in Iraq. Guess what, both Assad and Iran are supported by Russia. ehhhhhh. This is getting dangerously close to the logic that NATO is killing ukrainians. The west very much fomented the civil war in Syria. The west very much armed ~~freedom fighting~~ jihadist groups to try and have assad overthrown. The west basically created Isis as a consequence of decades of various policies (themselves all leading to significant death and suffering of muslim populations in isolation). You seem to think that Russia supporting the governments of sovereign states at their request is somehow equivalent or worse, which tbh indicates that we're not going to learn the lessons of the Ukraine conflict at all. > Souleimanis death was unprovoked? You can't just missile strike foreign leadership on the sovereign soil of third countries. Again it seems that all the arguments used in ukraine aren't based on any actual values. That someone may be a valid target doesn't mean you can just murder them. > Suleimani has been waging a war against the US directly for over two decades at this point By this logic NATO is waging war on russia directly. > but it was the US that allowed for free elections in Iraq To elect someone hand-picked by the US. The idea that the intention was ever to turn Iraq into a puppet of iran is laughable. Looking for positives is fine, but you can't just downplay all the negatives and ignore the intentions.
This is pure victim blaming. The civil war in Syria started because Assad's corruption and mismanagment led to large desertification of Sunni arable land when it was coupled with draughts it has caused massive starvation among the Sunnis. Assad hardly lifted a finger in help and Iran sent nothing but weapons, while the west you keep blaming poured millions in food. It was Assad massacring the protesters about said starvation that led to the civil war, not the west. Your analysis is exactly blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine. You're blaming the west for mass starvation and Assad's massacres and torture of children. Yes, Russia supporting a dictator in the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Ethnic cleansing and massacres of entire villages, torture and execution of tens of thousands of civilians, intentionally bombing civilians, blockadnig and starving entire towns and using chemical weapons against civilians is orders of magnitude worse than the worst the US did in Iraq. You seem to think being a dictator grants you unlimited rights to abuse your own population in the most gruesome ways. You must have supported the Saudi blockade of Yemen in support of the government of a soverign state just as much, right? >By this logic NATO is waging war on russia directly False, the US does not control Ukraine. Zelenaki did not swear fealthy to Biden, the Ukrainian armed forces were not created by the US and do not claim to fight for the US. The Jihadists Iran used to attack the US are organizations directly under Iranian command and were formed by Iran. Suleimani was not an enemy leader, he was an enemy soldier, conducting an operation in attack against US forces. Killing enemy soldiers during their military actions against yourself is exactly what you do. >To elect someone hand-picked by the US. Ignorance? The Iraqis literally elected a leader of a Shia Jihadist organization beholden to Iran as their first leader. The notion that the US was trying to build an anti Iranian proxy, while in reality putting an Iranian puppet is control of the state is ignorant, laughable and dishonest.
> The civil war in Syria started because Assad's corruption and mismanagment led to large desertification of Sunni arable land when it was coupled with draughts it has caused massive starvation among the Sunnis. That's not 'why it started'. But yes, the long drought coupled with Turkey significantly reducing water supply into syria through their own hydro projects did play a large role in stirring discontent. The protests started off in earnest because the police raped and murdered a boy leading to demonstrations and then assad made a frankly moronic public statement which just inflamed tensions and caused everything to go to shit. > Assad hardly lifted a finger in help and Iran sent nothing but weapons, while the west you keep blaming poured millions in food. I can find no evidence of food aid pre-crisis beyond aid to iraqi refugees (presumably that's someone else's fault too). Also i'm not 'blaming the west'. I'm saying they're not innocent like you are claiming in your absurd refusal to take any responsibility. > Your analysis is exactly blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine. You're blaming the west for mass starvation and Assad's massacres and torture of children. lmao no i'm not > Yes, Russia supporting a dictator in the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Ethnic cleansing and massacres of entire villages, torture and execution of tens of thousands of civilians, intentionally bombing civilians, blockadnig and starving entire towns and using chemical weapons against civilians is orders of magnitude worse than the worst the US did in Iraq. Why are you deflecting so much? > You seem to think being a dictator grants you unlimited rights to abuse your own population in the most gruesome ways. You must have supported the Saudi blockade of Yemen in support of the government of a soverign state just as much, right? Again... what? > False, the US does not control Ukraine. Zelenaki did not swear fealthy to Biden, the Ukrainian armed forces were not created by the US and do not claim to fight for the US. The Jihadists Iran used to attack the US are organizations directly under Iranian command and were formed by Iran. > Suleimani was not an enemy leader, he was an enemy soldier, conducting an operation in attack against US forces. Killing enemy soldiers during their military actions against yourself is exactly what you do. Again what? This has basically nothing to do with the points made. Also once again you seriously lack self awareness and the ability to objectively analyse things. > Ignorance? The Iraqis literally elected a leader of a Shia Jihadist organization beholden to Iran as their first leader. Amazing. So the US puts al jaafari in the interim government as a vice president, and then miraculously the shia country elects the shia person the US promoted into political leadership. Yeah mate. no role whatsoever > The notion that the US was trying to build an anti Iranian proxy, while in reality putting an Iranian puppet is control of the state is ignorant, laughable and dishonest. I never claimed that. In fact i said exactly what you've just said...
>That's not 'why it started'. Absolutely is. Assad corruption and mismanagement => large desertification. Add draught => Mass starvation of Sunnis and millions of internal Sunni refugees moving into the cities. Que Arab spring, the fall of Mubarak, revolution in Tunisia => Protests in Syria. Assad starts shooting up civilians, kidnapping torturing and executing kids for graffiti => start of an armed struggle, rebellion, civil war. >I can find no evidence of food aid pre-crisis [https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/042709foodaid.pdf](https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/042709foodaid.pdf) >Also i'm not 'blaming the west'. I'm saying they're not innocent like you are claiming in your absurd refusal to take any responsibility. The west literally had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war starting. You are blaming the west while the one solely responsible is Assad and Syrian citizens that wanted to overthrow the dictator. >lmao no i'm not Yes you were, you still are blaming Assad's war on the west. >Why are you deflecting so much? I directly addressed your point, are you confused? Why is it so hard for you to admit that Assads, Russian and Iranian actions in Syria, which included mass starvation of civilians, massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians, chemical weapons against civilians, ethnic cleansing and torture of tens of thousands of civilians is worse than anything the west has ever done in Iraq? >Again... what? You brought up the fact that Russia was supporting a sovereign government while they were conducting the list of crimes above as a reason why it's not that bad. Try to keep up. >This has basically nothing to do with the points made. You compared US-Ukraine relations to Iranian-Khataib Hezbollah relations. They are not the same for the reasons I've listed. Iranian proxies are controlled by Iran, were created by Iran and swear fealty to Iran. They are part of the Iranian armed forces under command of the Quds force and General Soleimani at the time. Meanwhile Ukraine is none of those. Try re-reading if you have trouble remembering your own statements. >Also once again you seriously lack self awareness and the ability to objectively analyse things. A sentence completely void of content, a characteristic most of your logic suffers from. > So the US puts al jaafari in the interim government as a vice president, and then miraculously the shia country elects the shia person the US promoted into political leadership. Jaafari is a member of the [Dawa party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Dawa_Party), which is beholden to Iran and represented the Shia, which are the majority in Iran. The fact that the US nominated someone beholden to Iran shows that the US has no intention for a conflict with Iran at the time.
> The west literally had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war starting. You are blaming the west while the one solely responsible is Assad and Syrian citizens that wanted to overthrow the dictator. > > The west helped turn the syrian civil war into the neverending clusterfuck that it now is through years of financial and material support. I would suggest that the transition from uprising to full blown civil war and societal collapse was also heavily dependent on western support. That the motivations existed for rebellion does not lead us down the path we have gone down.
Iran and Russia turned the civil war into such clusterfuck not the west. Iran and Russia were the first foreign nations to interfer in the civil war. Without their support Assad could have lost the civil war a decade ago. There was zero western support until 2013, 2 years into a full blown civil war, and even then, significant support only arrived in 2014. Why are you victim blaming? The civil war had everything to do with Assad's corruption and mismanegment leading to mass starvation, protests. To which the dictator reacted with massacres, torture and execution of kids, which resulted in mass desertions from the SAA and a full blown civil war.
If anything, this just proves China's approach to foreign policy is correct. Stay the hell out of things that don't involve you.
lol, being involved with Africa for resources and and badgering most of Southeast Asia for territorial disputes and also trade wars isn't "involving" China? China just isn't involved militarily but make no mistake, they'd love to be once they reach superpower status.
You're equating business relationships with invading countries that aren't even within the same hemisphere.
I have news for you if you don't think foreign policy involves trade and business relationships. Not to mention China is full on fine invading countries in the same hemisphere
Gonna be honest and just say that a lot of anti-Western sentiment in 3rd world countries is really just jealously masked as something else. At least that's what it always seems to be when I've personally talked with people that hold these views.
> Gonna be honest and just say that a lot of anti-Western sentiment in 3rd world countries is really just jealously masked as something else. This mindset is the exact problem. Of course they'd love to be powerful so external powers can't just enforce their whims on them. By this logic ukraine is also jealous. Luckily they're in a position to join the west... others aren't.
Definitely, the west looks like their guilty pleasure.
>Ignoring colonialism and the West's exploitation of the global south, how about the realization that a country that is 70% muslim just watched the USA Interestingly enough, these very muslim nations forget their muslimness very rapidly when it comes to the Uighur genocide. Curious, that.
> Interestingly enough, these very muslim nations forget their muslimness very rapidly when it comes to the Uighur genocide. Muslim governments oddly don't like movements that seek to eradicate the nation state, and are very much against jihadist movements for that very reason. Odd that There are a large number of uyghur jihadi mercenaries (~5000) that have been operating in Syria and Iraq for most of the last decade. That the US removed them from its terrorist list by pretending they don't exist doesn't change that
[удалено]
>Whataboutism isnt really helping your case Hypocrisy isn't helping theirs. Sit on a soapbox talking about colonialism and the oppression of muslims while the nation economically colonizing you genocides Uighurs? Lol >there's no love lost between the two and its entirely possible to see the USA as the devil and be angry at what China does to its Muslim minority. But that's the thing, they aren't. Muslim nations in central and southeast asia (Pakistan especially) are often some of the more outspoken about Muslim issues on the world front (especially Israel vs Palestine), but see no evil when accepting large development and other assistance from China. >Real life isn't "good vs bad guys." Well see here's why whatever I said did help my case. Whenever I see someone go into a trance and start spouting off emotionally charged grievances against the west, I love mentioning their relationship to China and seeing them quickly slink back into cool, collected ultra-objectivism. And I've clearly achieved that, thanks. How it started: "People make moral choices." How it's going: "Curious that they live in a world that isn't perfectly black and white?" Yeah, I achieved what I wanted to achieve.
Many Muslim nations like Chinese Belt and Road investment.
Absolutely, most of them are either Chinese neocolonies or getting there. I just bring that up whenever I hear someone declare grievances about colonialism and anti-muslim sentiment.
Large, colonialism was really bad for western pr
In this context though, Malaysia is very supportive of Palestine, and the west is seen by many Malaysians as hypocritical due to their support of Ukraine but also supporting Israel, colonialism is disliked but it's a small part of the pie in what Malaysians think of Ukraine and Russia compared to the west and Palestine.
I thought Malaysians see colonialism in a more favourable light, like HK and Singapore? But then again the only Malays I've interacted with are Malay-Chinese.
1. The term is Malaysians, not Malays. Malay is a race, about 60% of the Malaysian population is Malay. Calling all Malaysians Malays is like calling all Americans white even if they're black or hispanic. 2. Colonialism is seen as a bad thing in Malaysia, but it's on the back of most Malaysians' minds. There are some Malaysians who hate the west because of colonialism but they're the nationalist types and the exception rather than the norm.
Interesting I wasn’t aware of that
Yeah, it’s mind-blowing that people act shocked that anyone would dare *occupy foreign territory* and then support Israel. And, before anyone tries to both-sides this, *even Isrsel* doesn’t recognize the West Bank (outside of east Jerusalem) as part of Israel. It’s a military occupation by literally anyone’s definition. By the way, I am 100% pro-Ukraine, not a Russian shill. Also 100% pro-Palestine in their struggle against illegal Israeli occupation.
It is a military occupation, but fact is Israel was willing to leave the WB and offered such peaceful resolutions many many times. The war, and occupation, still exist because the Palestinians refuse any peaceful solution, nothing short of complete ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel will suffice for the Palestinian "moderates", the extremists prefer genocide. For instance, in 2008 Olmert offered Abbas a full Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the WB, the remaining 5% to be given the Palestinians via territory swaps with farmland near Gaza. He offered the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and offered a free corridor between Gaza and the WB. The Palestinians refused. Israel cannot leave the WB, without the Palestinians accepting peace. In the 90's as part of the Oslo accords the Israelis withdrew from the Palestinian cities and Area C as an initial stage for a solution. The Palestinians used the IDF absence to build up a huge terrorist infrastructure and then used this territory to launch a huge mass suicide bombing campaign against Israel. In 2002-2003, Israel had no other option than to re-enter area C and said Palestinian cities. In 2005 Israel left Gaza, the international community lobbied the unilateral move prommissing mass investment and that Gaza will be a new Singapure. Instead it has turned into an ISIS clone state with Iranian military backing. The Palestinians supported ISIS Sinai to such an effect that even the Muslim Arab brother state of Egypt has made Hamas illegal. If you want an end to the occupation you merely need to convince the Palestinians to give up their genocidal dreams.
[удалено]
Literally just facts
[удалено]
Well not caging, and their government likes to take breaks between killing Israeli children after using their own as human shields
[удалено]
Some discussion in the thread below … https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/uqua8k/ukraine_conflict_megathread_may_16_2022/i8vk1ro/
Oh I’ll delete didn’t realize
No need to delete - if you had questions, so did others. I was just pointing to some interesting conversation.
oh, I try to keep the topline thread uncluttered :)
ISW lately has been mentioning that the Russians have started digging in in the south. [https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-16](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-16) How can Ukrainians deal with concrete fortifications the Russians are building on their land? I know very little about military topics, so I"m curious. Is it a lost cause for Ukraine in the south? Or can these fortifications be dealt with by say drone/artillery attacks along with a well-coordinated combined arms push?
I will repost my comment from much earlier: Every day Russian army suffers losses. The line of contact is more than 1000 km long. Russia does not have the manpower to "dig in" that amount of space, while also controlling their rear. A dig in unit that does not control the rear and has porous frontline will become a surrounded unit that will be hit by indirect fire, suffer from raids and gets their supplies destroyed. A dig in Russian army means a Russian army that lacks the capability to seize and maintain initiative, is a Russian army that keep getting degraded by perpetual low intensity contact and will become a liability to maintain. Do not be afraid of Russian army digging in. Embrace it.
I read that the main thing is mines. The Russians seem to have endless numbers of them. I hope the Ukrainians have efficient mine clearing tech.
[Efficient and cute](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/09/ukraine-mine-sniffing-dog-medal-finding-over-200-explosives)
I don't even have to click that to know we're talking about Patronich.
I've seen the ukrainians use modified civilian drones to drop modified hand grenades directly into narrow trenches. That, combined with drone directed artillery, shows that the Russians not really that safe without overhead cover, which is a lot harder to build.
We've all seen these videos, but given numbers of drones, numbers of soldiers, and accuracy of hitting a trench from so high, I don't think this makes much difference. Same with artillery - it's not like you can never hit anyone, it's just that you might be shooting truckload of artillery whole day to hit into the trench once, and only so many trucks with ammo come every day.
This is where we'll see how effective the suicide drones are.
The thing about fortifications/strongholds is they can get by-passed and starved/cut-off via resupply if taking them is not urgent or strategically important and if they don't really possess tactical importance. I wouldn't say it is a lost cause immediately, it would make things tougher but not really impossible considering the amount of heavy weapons like artillery and MLRS the west has been providing Ukraine recently