• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlackM1st

Banned
However, I disagree that Russia has nothing to gain from keeping civilians locked down in the city. If there is no food or supplies to go around, everybody starts starving etc, there will be no choice but to surrender. This is kind of the whole point of sieging a city. Furthermore, many of these civilians could leave the city, go somewhere else in the country under Ukraine control still
I just wish that all this war wasn't hurting and killing innocent civilians.

Unlike some posters here I don't accept the idea of "necessary sacrifices in the face of aggression".
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Take a deep breath. A lot of shit is "all over the news". So what?

Who's artillery it is?

What gains Russia by keeping civilians locked down in cities? Bad PR.

What gains Ukrainian national guard from it? Nice meat shield and good PR.

Mind you, I don't say Ukrainian military. I say national guard. Azov. People for whom Putin came. There's no way they're getting out there alive. So why would they let people leave?
What gains Russia by keeping civilians locked down in cities? Shock, awe, and demoralization of the populace in order to force a surrender more quickly. Historically, this is a very common tactic, so acting like Russia gives a shit about PR doesn't make sense.

What gains Ukrainian national guard from it? Nothing. Their job is to protect civilians and repel invaders, so they're just doing their job. The question you aren't asking yourself that is a key to all this is...

What gains Ukrainian civilians from staying in their cities? Well, for one thing, it's hard to leave because of all the Russian attacks. It's hard to leave because of the attacks, and it's hard to stay because of the attacks. In many circumstances, the civilians are trapped. Secondly, many of them want to stay. Why? Because they want to drive out the invaders and protect their home. Historically, this is also a common theme that you see among invaded peoples. You can see for yourself all of the videos of Ukrainian citizens opting to stay behind, take up arms, construct sandbags, camo, and molotov cocktails.

You are uncritically taking the "Russian side" of this conflict at face value and turning a blind eye to the historical role of the aggressor trying to hide their imperialist offenses. Apply your line of thought to the USA war on terror and see where that gets you. What gains the USA by keeping civilians locked down in cities? Bad PR? What gains the "terrorists" from it? Nice meat shield and good PR? Maybe according to the US narrative, but as leaks from Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning proved, a lot of that was a load of bullshit. Don't kid yourself that the Russian Federation, which has less of a care about human rights than the USA does, care much about the human cost of collateral damage vis a vis their PR campaign.

In regards to Azov, they are a battalion in Mariupol, so if they are the "people for whom Putin came", why is Russia attacking the whole country instead of just Mariupol?

Your analysis has too many holes in it.
 
What gains Russia by keeping civilians locked down in cities? Shock, awe, and demoralization of the populace in order to force a surrender more quickly. Historically, this is a very common tactic, so acting like Russia gives a shit about PR doesn't make sense.

What gains Ukrainian national guard from it? Nothing. Their job is to protect civilians and repel invaders, so they're just doing their job. The question you aren't asking yourself that is a key to all this is...

What gains Ukrainian civilians from staying in their cities? Well, for one thing, it's hard to leave because of all the Russian attacks. It's hard to leave because of the attacks, and it's hard to stay because of the attacks. In many circumstances, the civilians are trapped. Secondly, many of them want to stay. Why? Because they want to drive out the invaders and protect their home. Historically, this is also a common theme that you see among invaded peoples. You can see for yourself all of the videos of Ukrainian citizens opting to stay behind, take up arms, construct sandbags, camo, and molotov cocktails.

You are uncritically taking the "Russian side" of this conflict at face value and turning a blind eye to the historical role of the aggressor trying to hide their imperialist offenses. Apply your line of thought to the USA war on terror and see where that gets you. What gains the USA by keeping civilians locked down in cities? Bad PR? What gains the "terrorists" from it? Nice meat shield and good PR? Maybe according to the US narrative, but as leaks from Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning proved, a lot of that was a load of bullshit. Don't kid yourself that the Russian Federation, which has less of a care about human rights than the USA does, care much about the human cost of collateral damage vis a vis their PR campaign.

In regards to Azov, they are a battalion in Mariupol, so if they are the "people for whom Putin came", why is Russia attacking the whole country instead of just Mariupol?

Your analysis has too many holes in it.
Putin could definitely care less about the civilian deaths. Their first initial assault seemed logical and only military targets. Now, they are shelling and bombing entire cities indiscriminately. I think they are frustrated by local resistance and are now trying to break the morale of the civilians. The allies and axis powers did the same thing in WW2. They called it "strategic bombing."
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Says who?

It's in Russian interests to let all civilians go and destroy cities full of national guard of Ukraine.

Take a deep breath. A lot of shit is "all over the news". So what?

Who's artillery it is?

What gains Russia by keeping civilians locked down in cities? Bad PR.

What gains Ukrainian national guard from it? Nice meat shield and good PR.

Mind you, I don't say Ukrainian military. I say national guard. Azov. People for whom Putin came. There's no way they're getting out there alive. So why would they let people leave?

So let me get this straight.

There's no way for Ukrainian side to do anything despicable?

There's no way you will believe in anything Russia says?

Whatever happens in reality, all is good as long it benefits Ukrainian narrative and hurts Russian narrative regardless of reality?

Right?
Don't forget to ask for a pay raise comrade. The ruble isn't what it was a few weeks back. Make sure you are properly compensated for all your hard work here.
 
Last edited:

LimanimaPT

Member
Putin could definitely care less about the civilian deaths. Their first initial assault seemed logical and only military targets. Now, they are shelling and bombing entire cities indiscriminately. I think they are frustrated by local resistance and are now trying to break the morale of the civilians. The allies and axis powers did the same thing in WW2. They called it "strategic bombing."
Yes, this looks just like ww2. And that is completely unacceptable. We are supposed to be more civilized, but it seems we aren't. They are just a bunch of cowards with a laughable military.
 

Airbus Jr

Banned


Get ready for more air to air fight

Its gona be scary man

Tbh im kinda wishing for more aa defence
 
Last edited:
I don't know how reliable this is, but just in case:


Putin and his leadersip might be planning to shell some bordering Ukrainian-Russian city and place the blame on Ukraine. It would give an excuse for full mobilization. This is insanity if it happens.
 
Last edited:

Lanrutcon

Member
Yes, this looks just like ww2. And that is completely unacceptable. We are supposed to be more civilized, but it seems we aren't. They are just a bunch of cowards with a laughable military.

"Man, people were so stupid back in the day, letting Hitler get away with all that shit before stepping up. That would never happen today."

And, let us not forget:

"Those people in the movies are so stupid. During a real epidemic actual people wouldn't act so dumb."
 

RAÏSanÏa

Member
Jesus christ if this is true:


Putin and his leadersip might be planning to shell some bordering Ukrainian-Russian city and place the blame on Ukraine. It would give an excuse for full mobilization. This is insanity if it happens.
Those should be sabotaged/destroyed by their own forces.
 

JokerMM

Gay porn is where it's at.
if you think Ukraine can win this, i have some bad news for you
the real question is how this is gonna effect russia in general
 

Sakura

Member
Yes, this looks just like ww2. And that is completely unacceptable. We are supposed to be more civilized, but it seems we aren't. They are just a bunch of cowards with a laughable military.
Mankind has been warring for thousands of years. There have been plenty of wars since WW2. Hell, there were even wars in Europe within the last 30 years or so, like the Bosnian War where over 100,000 people were killed.
This idea that we are more civilized now is kind of a fantasy.
 

Airbus Jr

Banned
This sounds nice on paper but does Ukraine have enough pilots, mechanics, and airfields to accommodate new fighters?
Tbh i dont know man hard to tell

But dont they have that famous ace pilot ghost of kyiv

I wonder if hes a real hero or a myth man
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Tbh i dont know man hard to tell

But dont they have that famous ace pilot ghost of kyiv

I wonder if hes a real hero or a myth man
Either way he's helpful. If he happens to be real then they have a good pilot and if he is just a bit of a myth like everybody seems to think now then he is a morale booster for the troops and the population.


And there was a report a while back that yes Ukraine does have pilots on the ground and they have air fields in the West that Russia haven't taken or damaged.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
This sounds nice on paper but does Ukraine have enough pilots, mechanics, and airfields to accommodate new fighters?
1d58ce9d-b935-4ec1-885d-12e7c76b0cd8_text.gif
 

STARSBarry

Gold Member
Take a deep breath. A lot of shit is "all over the news". So what?

Who's artillery it is?

What gains Russia by keeping civilians locked down in cities? Bad PR.

What gains Ukrainian national guard from it? Nice meat shield and good PR.

Mind you, I don't say Ukrainian military. I say national guard. Azov. People for whom Putin came. There's no way they're getting out there alive. So why would they let people leave?

ROFL 🤣

Remember guys alternative facts, it's not what "the media" is saying ergo it must be the truth, something something deep state.

Got anything backing this up other than hearsay and conjecture?

 
Last edited:

Loope

Member
Dont want to be an anoying person here but dude doesnt seems old just fat and hes not flying mig but su34
The dude might be fat, but maybe they have some sort of hierarchy in place to whom flies the best planes. Perhaps he is a very experienced pilot that happened to be on reserve or something like that.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Do reconsider posting in this thread if you've fallen for Russian propaganda and can rationalize the intentional bombing of civilian convoys fleeing a war zone, shelling nuclear reactors, cluster bombing residential neighborhoods and apartment complexes before your forces arrive in a city, opening fire on unarmed peaceful protesters, etc.

Ukraine is not without its internal problems. That doesn't justify a WW2-style invasion with WW2-era tactics in any way whatsoever.
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
“Russia’s holding back their good stuff!”

Errr, about that…


You are missing the point.
These are disposable vehicles.
The goal is to just transport fuel and munitions. Nothing else.
The vehicles are not suppose to get back.
And that's why Russia was always so efficient. it's not about the looks and overspending on simplest tasks.... They don't need hummers. Just simple trucks that are reliable and easy to fix... and disposable.

They always fought qty over quality.
edit: and yes. People too are disposable to the fuckers
 
Last edited:

MrMephistoX

Member
Do reconsider posting in this thread if you've fallen for Russian propaganda and can rationalize the intentional bombing of civilian convoys fleeing a war zone, shelling nuclear reactors, cluster bombing residential neighborhoods and apartment complexes before your forces arrive in a city, opening fire on unarmed peaceful protesters, etc.

Ukraine is not without its internal problems. That doesn't justify a WW2-style invasion with WW2-era tactics in any way whatsoever.
Case on point appeasement never works when the one side of the negotiating table is led by a bad actor like Putin hell bent on an irrational goal.

 
Last edited:

JayK47

Member
I saw a post elsewhere that made a good point about nuclear power. It is definitely a downside to nuclear power if nothing can happen to it without causing a major radiation leak or meltdown. If a coal plant is bombed, hit with an earthquake or a tsunami, it isn't going to create a major meltdown or anything. I'm no expert, but I am pretty sure you can't just turn off a nuclear reactor. The workers at the these nuclear plants are basically hostages working to keep the plant up and running without a meltdown. I would not want to be in that situation.
 

DeafTourette

Perpetually Offended
Mankind has been warring for thousands of years. There have been plenty of wars since WW2. Hell, there were even wars in Europe within the last 30 years or so, like the Bosnian War where over 100,000 people were killed.
This idea that we are more civilized now is kind of a fantasy.

Yes... People seem to forget this. Like that news reporter saying that this seems alien because Europe is civilized (unlike, per his words, Africa and Middle East... Unfortunate words). He forgot all about the Balkan war, sin fein, etc.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
I saw a post elsewhere that made a good point about nuclear power. It is definitely a downside to nuclear power if nothing can happen to it without causing a major radiation leak or meltdown. If a coal plant is bombed, hit with an earthquake or a tsunami, it isn't going to create a major meltdown or anything. I'm no expert, but I am pretty sure you can't just turn off a nuclear reactor. The workers at the these nuclear plants are basically hostages working to keep the plant up and running without a meltdown. I would not want to be in that situation.
Release of measurable carcinogens from nuclear plants is exceedingly rare. Release of carcinogens from coal plants happens any time they’re running.
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
I saw a post elsewhere that made a good point about nuclear power. It is definitely a downside to nuclear power if nothing can happen to it without causing a major radiation leak or meltdown. If a coal plant is bombed, hit with an earthquake or a tsunami, it isn't going to create a major meltdown or anything. I'm no expert, but I am pretty sure you can't just turn off a nuclear reactor. The workers at the these nuclear plants are basically hostages working to keep the plant up and running without a meltdown. I would not want to be in that situation.
Nuclear power is bad

IF there is a war
IF the plant is bombed
IF the containment and lockdown systems will not kick in

That’s a lot of IFs. Meanwhile coal kills tens of thousands of people each year due to respiratory problem and that’s 100% guaranteed.
 
Last edited:

Wildebeest

Member
I saw a post elsewhere that made a good point about nuclear power. It is definitely a downside to nuclear power if nothing can happen to it without causing a major radiation leak or meltdown. If a coal plant is bombed, hit with an earthquake or a tsunami, it isn't going to create a major meltdown or anything. I'm no expert, but I am pretty sure you can't just turn off a nuclear reactor. The workers at the these nuclear plants are basically hostages working to keep the plant up and running without a meltdown. I would not want to be in that situation.
It all comes down to the design. Chernobyl was a very crazy old design, and the one being shelled is different, safer, but I don't know how much. You have to take with a pinch of salt the people saying that that plant was 8 times larger than Chernobyl, so a disaster could be 8 Chernobyls. I understand that modern next generation plants would have fail-safe designs based on decades of experience and expertise. The problem is the politics and cost, not the technology. With the shelling, the experts seemed concerned about how the Russians might hit the waste storage areas, so that is always a concern.
 

Wildebeest

Member
You know all of this No Fly Zone = WWIII talk from both sides of the aisle in the US is eerily similar to the US not wanting to get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Yeah, Britain had our own "Ghost of Kyiv" moments, waiting for the US. But back then we were allowed pilots from places such as Poland and Canada. They were not deemed "forbidden" by Hitler.

 

Nikodemos

Member
Russia saying any country allowing Ukranian jets to use airfields will be considered involved in the war.
So just push them on the highway past the border station, and get the Ukrainian pilots to take off from there. Soviet jets were designed to be flown off roads.
 

sircaw

Banned
Maybe some readers could enlighten me on a few things.

The first is, a lot of news organizations are saying that Putin greatly overestimated how quickly he was going to take over Ukraine. A couple of days to storm the entire country was his reckoning.

So this got me thinking about costs and what it is personally costing the Russian government.

According to some sources. the amount of losses the Russian military has taken in the last 10 days or so has been significant.
Scores of tanks, hundreds of personal carriers, planes, choppers, the list goes on, etc, etc

Then I was thinking about the hundreds of missiles that have also been fired indiscriminately into the cities.
Does anyone have any idea how much these munitions cost?

Take cruise missiles, for example, I cant be 100% sure but I remember the gulf war with its skuds vs patriots. The latter I believe was very expensive to produce costing several million dollars a time to produce.

I would imagine the systems now are even more expensive.




I understand that dickhead Putin has a war chest of billions but is there a chance, especially with massive sanctions in place now, that Russia could see themselves just running out of cash.

An army without cash is an army without food and supplies.

Maybe i am grasping at fairy tale ramifications here but every day the Ukraine holds out is another nail in Putin's coffin.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom