Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
You have failed to make the case that NATO is characterised by criminality for the obvious reason that it isn't true.
Click to expand...

NATO is a criminal organisation because they didn't sit back and watch while the Yugoslav republics went about their campaigns of ethnic cleansing. Can't you see how evil and criminal that is?
 
If NATO is criminal for attacking Serbia without UN Security Council permission, then Russia is surely also criminal for attacking Ukraine without UN Security Council permission.
 
Zelensky's been named Time's person of the year. The Haters on Twitter have pointed out that yeah, "but so was Hitler!" Their person of the year "for better or for worse ... has done the most to influence the events of the year".

My guess is that, if Putin had been successful, it would have had a damaging impact on the international order and the rule of law. It might have been Putin on the cover. Zelensky threw a monkey wrench into his year's machinations!
 
And I'm not embarrassed to admit it

jimbob said:
I disagree.

There are probably better tactical drones and hitting Russian strategic bomber bases on two separate days will mean that the Kremlin will have to consider spreading its air defenses wider.

It also sends a clear political message. The drone could have hit the Russian capital, but instead hit bombers preparing to hit Kyiv. Forcing Russia to spread its resources is god.

It is a shame that a fully loaded and fuelled bomber with crew and groundcrew attending wasn't hit though.
Click to expand...

Agree on the political aspect, always keeping in mind that PutaMan doesn't necessarily draw conclusions the way you or I or Alfred E. Newman do.

As to the actual technologies being employed, I'm guessing. Period. Ukraine may be achieving miracles, or just getting lucky with the little they have. It appears that they haven't inflicted serious damage. Can they unnerve the Russians into diluting their defenses? Maybe over time, but nothing happens very fast in the Great Slavic Motherland.

I still have my heart set on 200kg warheads.

With man in the loop guidance. Jesus, I'd pay good $$$ for a co-pilot's seat on missions like that. Even with dummy controls. I'd be cavorting and yelling like Trump in the truck cab.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Zelensky's been named Time's person of the year. The Haters on Twitter have pointed out that yeah, "but so was Hitler!" Their person of the year "for better or for worse ... has done the most to influence the events of the year".

My guess is that, if Putin had been successful, it would have had a damaging impact on the international order and the rule of law. It might have been Putin on the cover. Zelensky threw a monkey wrench into his year's machinations!
Click to expand...

I doubt it. In 2001, they named Rudy Giuliani instead of Osama Bin Laden. Since then, I’ve taken the ‘for better or worse’ thing with a pinch of salt.
 
Shunning the obvious "for ill" choice actually goes back to 1979, when Time lost thousands of subscribers because the magazine named Khomeini as its Man of the Year, even though the selection was clearly correct.

However, there is precedent for Zelenskyy, as Hitler and Stalin were selected in 1938 and 1939, respectively, but Churchill and FDR were chosen in 1940 and 1941, respectively.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Zelensky's been named Time's person of the year. The Haters on Twitter have pointed out that yeah, "but so was Hitler!" Their person of the year "for better or for worse ... has done the most to influence the events of the year".

My guess is that, if Putin had been successful, it would have had a damaging impact on the international order and the rule of law. It might have been Putin on the cover. Zelensky threw a monkey wrench into his year's machinations!
Click to expand...


Time's cover story makes clear that the editors believe that Zelenskyy has had a positive impact. But the haters don't care, of course.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
Time's cover story makes clear that the editors believe that Zelenskyy has had a positive impact. But the haters don't care, of course.
Click to expand...

In some cases, they'll care very much... so much so, in fact, that they may go out of their way to deny that it's positive!
 
Michel H said:
But claiming an error was made by the Bolsheviks isn't the same thing as

which is a much radical statement, which is threatening to Finland and the Baltic states.
Click to expand...

When you denounce a peace treaty recognizing the independence of another state you are implicitly criticising said states existence. People are not as stupid and brain dead as you seem to think and it's quite clear what he means.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1600509341924220930?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

Putin at the meeting with Human Rights council of Russia
I think we have a winner for most useless organization in the world award.
Click to expand...

As there are no issues surrounding human rights in Russia, simply because the notion of human rights are anathema to the fascistic autocratic imperialism that Russia has adopted as a state ideology, they have time to discuss a lot of other things.
 
Last edited:
Putin defends the fact that the "special military operation" could go on for longer than expected (instead of being over after a few days it could take years maybe who knows) by stating that Russia has now become bigger. As Putin points out, Tzar Peter the Great also "had to fight over the Azov sea", which he proudly boasts is now under Russian control (at least for the moment).

Isn't that worth sending hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers to maimed and killed over?

Yes. Yes it is. You could say that it is their right, their very human right, to be casually sent to die for a dictators vainglory.
 
Steve said:
Prop - a - gan - da. Effective on the ignorant and uneducated. Some people actually believe it. Others merely parrot it in support of their particular regime. It is up to you to decide which is occurring here.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but smart, well educated people also often fall for Propaganda.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Shunning the obvious "for ill" choice actually goes back to 1979, when Time lost thousands of subscribers because the magazine named Khomeini as its Man of the Year, even though the selection was clearly correct.

However, there is precedent for Zelenskyy, as Hitler and Stalin were selected in 1938 and 1939, respectively, but Churchill and FDR were chosen in 1940 and 1941, respectively.
Click to expand...

For the record, Time has made it's clear Man of the Year is given for having an impact on the world, not necessarly a good one.
Come to think of it, Time Man Of The Year last year, Elon Musk, is not doing very well since he was named.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom