Ukraine

[Ag3ma]

Meanwhile, EU armies and EU air forces are sitting there idle because many of their citizens are self-indulgent cowards, and their leaders are short-sighted and selfish, letting much of their militaries rot, and letting the far left and far right dominate their political process. Stop being cowards, grab your armies, get your G36 or HK-416 or other bullpup rifles, and beat back the fascist Russians.

The Americans have their hands full with multiple crises around the world. They have the Houthis, the two Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Venezuela to deal with. There is a reason Blinken and Jake Sullivan are running around across the world starting to put out fires started by tinpot dictatorships and their yesmen armies.

The USA chooses to drop itself in much of that shit for its own power projection, and even then unwisely. Half these conflicts it doesn't actually need to get involved in. You remember Iraq, and Afghanistan? That's what Europe sees - dunderheaded interventions that are prone to cause as many or more problems than they solve. I mean, you recently said Iran now all but runs Iraq. Who opened the door to let that happen, eh? Syria achieved nothing and the USA doesn't need to be there at all.

And rather than learn from these repeated cock-ups, you charge in and say "MOAR INTERVENTIONS!"

A major reason the Houthis are chucking missiles at ships is because the USA refuses to rein in Israel. The USA slavishly hands it unlimited political and military support. It's hilarious because Netanyahu knows it, and regularly spits in the face of the USA, safe in the knowledge he can embarrass the USA at will and still get all the arms and UN Security Council vetoes Israel needs. And then the USA also has to run round mopping up all the other shit that spills out across the region from it. This is largely the USA's self-made problem, and it's laughable to think anyone else has to support the Americans maintain this toxic mess.

It's hilarious to see you say Europe is letting the far right dominate their political process. Have you seen the latest Trump v. Biden numbers? To all intents and purposes Trump is the far right, at least as much as in most European countries you seek to criticise.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, one the US, UK, French Nuclear warheads, ABM and etc. > Russian ones, and China.

So? So Russia can be nuked more than Russia nukes western nations? Western nations, oddly enough, do not want to be nuked.

 

[Gergar12]

The USA chooses to drop itself in much of that shit for its own power projection, and even then unwisely. Half these conflicts it doesn't actually need to get involved in. You remember Iraq, and Afghanistan? That's what Europe sees - dunderheaded interventions that are prone to cause as many or more problems than they solve. I mean, you recently said Iran now all but runs Iraq. Who opened the door to let that happen, eh? Syria achieved nothing and the USA doesn't need to be there at all.

And rather than learn from these repeated cock-ups, you charge in and say "MOAR INTERVENTIONS!"

A major reason the Houthis are chucking missiles at ships is because the USA refuses to rein in Israel. The USA slavishly hands it unlimited political and military support. It's hilarious because Netanyahu knows it, and regularly spits in the face of the USA, safe in the knowledge he can embarrass the USA at will and still get all the arms and UN Security Council vetoes Israel needs. And then the USA also has to run round mopping up all the other shit that spills out across the region from it. This is largely the USA's self-made problem, and it's laughable to think anyone else has to support the Americans maintain this toxic mess.

It's hilarious to see you say Europe is letting the far right dominate their political process. Have you seen the latest Trump v. Biden numbers? To all intents and purposes Trump is the far right, at least as much as in most European countries you seek to criticise.

Of course, a deflection from the topic at the head because you are too afraid to discuss the topic at the head or Europe's cowardice with regards to Ukraine and Europe backstabbing them when Ukraine fed the world and Europe, and deterrence towards daddy USA saving them. Saddam Hussain repeatedly violated multiple UN resolutions, the Tablians are the worst government group in the world that has child brides like the Houthis. Had it been any other empire in history they would be pined to a cross, and made an example of.

So? So Russia can be nuked more than Russia nukes Western nations? Western nations, oddly enough, do not want to be nuked.

Not only do I think most Russian nukes don't work, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all don't work. The Russians are trying to maintain a nuclear arsenal like the US with the budget of New York.

Again your governments and much of your people are sold, selfish, and cowards.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not only do I think most Russian nukes don't work, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all don't work. The Russians are trying to maintain a nuclear arsenal like the US with the budget of New York.

So, you'd be the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of your citizens lives on 100% of Russian nuclear devices not working at all? One, just one, nuclear device initiating (or even partially initiating) in a major city, and it's the worse single disaster your nation has likely faced in its entire history.

 

[Gergar12]

That's wildly simplistic.

France has one of the most powerful and efficiently funded military forces on the planet, and because France's relationship to NATO is kind of nebulous it's entirely capable of operating independently. France has permanent military bases in Africa and has involved itself in numerous African conflicts without any need for NATO support. France also has a permanent at-sea nuclear deterrent, which is incredibly expensive.

The US has systematically defunded its military since the cold war too. You know why, because noone wants to ruin their economy preparing for a world war that isn't going to happen.



There are vastly, vastly more German tanks in Ukraine (Leopard 1s and Leopard 2s) than any other western-made tank including those supplied by the US. Both have significantly over-performed relative to the Soviet models they are replacing.

I don't think anyone thinks the Challenger 2 is a particularly good machine, particularly on the War Thunder forums (a game made by a Russian company that funds Russian insurgents in Ukraine and is infamous for Russian bias). It's a relatively old tank that can't fire modern ammunition because of its rifled gun, hence why it's due to be retired and given an upgrade package.

The thing is, Challenger 2 is fine. It's good enough that it hasn't needed to be replaced so far because Russia can't actually produce anything that is better outside of video games. In fact, some reports from Ukraine (where Challenger 2s are serving) have suggested that the rifled gun is actually advantageous against older Russian tank models, which are now very common in Ukraine.



Do you feel like taking a chance on that?

The UK and France have a strategic nuclear deterrent. Do you understand that word?



No, it's not.

"We" don't own the continent. "We" are a bunch of independent countries with distinct political and geopolitical aims but some overarching mutual interests. That is what Ukraine is fighting to remain. Noone gives a shit about what would best suit US interests because European countries are not extensions of US foreign policy.

Your country only exists because of an Anglo-French rivalry that goes back to the hundred years war. Sweden and Denmark have fought more wars against each other than any other extant nation on Earth. Our histories and national identities are long, complex and hard-won. That's part of what being European means, and noone is going to give that up because it would be more convenient for someone hundreds of miles away who wants to play nuclear Russian roulette with other people's lives.

Yet France oddly enough is afraid of a military they should be superior to. Curious. Yes the US defunds parts of the military like capping the number of F-22s, and Seawolf submarines. As well as axing the F-111. But the Europeans took it to an extreme and started cutting defense programs left and right including maintenance and logistics.

I heard multiple times that the Challenger 2 has better armor than the Abrams, and that's true but where are the British crews with regards to staffing them, and fighting for Ukraine against Russian imperial aggression?

Putin is scared of Western nukes despite RT propaganda, all we have to do is point some of our nukes at him and his family and tell him we can all die, or you can let a conventional war occur in Ukraine. The choice is yours. Plus they don't maintain their nukes since the key ingredients in them uranium and or plutonium need to be maintained due to decay, there have been reports that they fail to maintain vast sums of their military including their nukes.

Stop calling yourselves Europeans, your ancestors no matter where or who they are would hate you all. So much for a storied history.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Yet France oddly enough is afraid of a military they should be superior to.

France isn't a person and doesn't have emotions.

Putin is scared of Western nukes despite RT propaganda, all we have to do is point some of our nukes at him and his family and tell him we can all die, or you can let a conventional war occur in Ukraine.

Again, do you understand the concept of a nuclear deterrent?

Let's say we all ripped up our nuclear doctrines and issued such a threat. Now, imagine you are Putin, or any member of the Russian government. You now have a basic choice. Accept nuclear blackmail and concede that your country's sovereignty no longer exists, or ignore the threat and point out (correctly) that any use of nuclear weapons would be reciprocated. It doesn't matter if you are personally "scared" or not, there is only one response that preserves your sovereignty and ensures the future security of your country, and you are obligated to take it. If you don't take it, you're not actually the leader of that country any more.

Moreover, any move towards a world where nuclear threats are normalized creates an incredibly toxic incentive among non-nuclear weapon states to acquire nuclear weapons at basically any cost, since they are now the only means any country has to protect its sovereignty. It is genuinely impossible to overstate how negative the impact would be on geopolitical security.

Stop calling yourselves Europeans

We literally are Europeans. Go eat MacDonalds and cry about it.

 

[Gergar12]

France isn't a person and doesn't have emotions.



Again, do you understand the concept of a nuclear deterrent?

Let's say we all ripped up our nuclear doctrines and issued such a threat. Now, imagine you are Putin, or any member of the Russian government. You now have a basic choice. Accept nuclear blackmail and concede that your country's sovereignty no longer exists, or ignore the threat and point out (correctly) that any use of nuclear weapons would be reciprocated. It doesn't matter if you are personally "scared" or not, there is only one response that preserves your sovereignty and ensures the future security of your country, and you are obligated to take it. If you don't take it, you're not actually the leader of that country any more.

Moreover, any move towards a world where nuclear threats are normalized creates an incredibly toxic incentive among non-nuclear weapon states to acquire nuclear weapons at basically any cost, since they are now the only means any country has to protect its sovereignty. It is genuinely impossible to overstate how negative the impact would be on geopolitical security.



We literally are Europeans. Go eat MacDonalds and cry about it.

Most Russian nukes don't work, and that's an optimistic estimate.

No One Knows If Decades-Old Nukes Would Actually Work

Atomic weapons are highly complex, surprisingly sensitive, and often pretty old. With testing banned, countries have to rely on good maintenance and simulations to trust their weapons work.

www.wired.co.uk

.

Furthermore, you wouldn't be invading Russia proper you would be retaking the Donbas, parts of Eastern Europe, and Crimea. I estimate Putin would figure out that using piss poor maybe nukes wouldn't be worth it for Crimea, and the Donbas.

The US military has a hard time getting Minutemen 3 to work and they have a budget that dwarfs Russia, China fills their DF-5 missiles with water, and their slios don't work.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Most Russian nukes don't work, and that's an optimistic estimate.

It literally would not matter even if this were true, because one single nuke is still an existential threat to any nation on earth. It doesn't even really matter how big a country or its economy is, you detonate a nuke over a major city, and that country is economically ruined for decades (even putting aside the fact that millions of innocent people are also dead). You are asking people to gamble the economic future of generations on the idea that Russia, a nation which possesses one of the largest on paper stockpiles in the world, has literally zero operational nuclear warheads. That is a shitty bet, and there is no way of swinging it to ever be worthwhile.

And again, even if it works, even if it somehow turns out Russia doesn't actually have any working nukes. All you have done is create a world where Russia now has no choice but to rebuild its nuclear arsenal (which is entirely within its theoretical means to do) because you have demonstrated that a functioning nuclear arsenal is the only path to national self-determination. A world where nuclear threats become a valid tool for pursuing diplomacy is not a world anyone wants to live in. Literally any outcome in Ukraine is still better than that.

 

[Gergar12]

It literally would not matter even if this were true, because one single nuke is still an existential threat to any nation on earth. It doesn't even really matter how big a country or its economy is, you detonate a nuke over a major city, and that country is economically ruined for decades (even putting aside the fact that millions of innocent people are also dead). You are asking people to gamble the economic future of generations on the idea that Russia, a nation which possesses one of the largest on paper stockpiles in the world, has literally zero operational nuclear warheads. That is a shitty bet, and there is no way of swinging it to ever be worthwhile.

And again, even if it works, even if it somehow turns out Russia doesn't actually have any working nukes. All you have done is create a world where Russia now has no choice but to rebuild its nuclear arsenal (which is entirely within its theoretical means to do) because you have demonstrated that a functioning nuclear arsenal is the only path to national self-determination. A world where nuclear threats become a valid tool for pursuing diplomacy is not a world anyone wants to live in. Literally any outcome in Ukraine is still better than that.

They haven't had the tritium reactors needed for a fusion bomb since the 1990s, and are approaching 3 half-lives since then with regards to their fusion nuclear bombs. Their fission weapons are all in disrepair. They stopped NATO/the US from checking their nukes due to being embarrassed by them. They haven't even sourced tritium from foreign sources. Their own nuclear weapons program is a Potemkin village. it would be an insult to China to call them a paper tiger. Russia can't even build a T-14 Tank factory, Su-57 numbers are low, unable to build destroyers, and unable to build or repair their aircraft carrier let alone a supercarrier. The only thing they can do is spread lies, and yap.

 

[Satinavian]

Kuwait was not an ally, and neither was Albania or Bosnia. As for a nuclear exchange, Putin is bluffing, his nukes don't work, and his submarines and many of his tanks are rusting. Some of his Su-57s are sitting out in the cold. the EU total economy is comparable to both the Chinese and the American economy individually. As for Europe, their financial aid is useful for morale but where are they going to buy the bullets, shells, bombs, missiles, and drones needed to end the war? China and Russia won't sell to them, Turkey may sell but their hardware other than some drones is subpar, South Africa has a crime problem, and the US is at full capability and is funneling as many arms to Taiwan and itself as possible.

The US only ever started hot wars against countries that could not even remotely threaten the USA mainland for a long time. European countries follow the same logic.

That is why they will only go to a real war with Russia, if Russia attacks and then it is against all of NATO anyway.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

oh noo coach redpill died in Ukraine prison but for real this time maybe? or could still be just far-rights' media complex thirsting for a new fresh victimhood narrative to keep the distraction cycle aflame? Though If confirmed , not sure if they're gonna go full hog on this one or prioritise other international shenanigans for narrative shaping yet.

Pro-Russian blogger Gonzalo Lira allegedly dies in Ukrainian detention center

Pro-Russian blogger Gonzalo Lira, who held both U.S. and Chilean citizenship, has allegedly died in a Ukrainian detention center on Jan. 12, according to reports on X (Twitter).

news.yahoo.com

American-Chilean blogger Gonzalo Lira detained by SBU in Kharkiv

Pro-Russian blogger Gonzalo Lira, who held both U.S. and Chilean citizenship, has allegedly died in a Ukrainian detention center on Jan. 12, according to reports on X (Twitter).

This information has not been officially confirmed by Ukraine or the United States.

Kit Klarenberg, who works at the propaganda outlet Grayzone was among the first to report Lira’s death.

“Confirmed by his family,” wrote Klarenberg.

“I disagreed with him on just about everything. He shouldn’t have died in a Ukrainian jail though.”
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, known for his openly pro-Russian sentiments, also reported Lira’s death, citing an interview with his father as a source.

Blogger Alex Rubinstein shared a letter on X (Twitter), allegedly written by Lira on Jan. 4, in which he complained about his health. The letter mentioned Lira having double pneumonia, pneumothorax, and a severe case of body swelling.

Lira’s father claimed, without evidence, that his son was “tortured” in the detention center.

American billionaire Elon Musk reacted to the news of the pro-Russian blogger’s death, stating, “This is super messed up!” in the comments section of a post by businessman David Sacks, a wealthy person who frequently repeats Russian propaganda on X (Twitter).

Lira, 55, was born in California and held dual citizenship in Chile. He began as a writer of detective novels and thrillers, transitioning to film in Chile. In the 2010s, he became an economic commentator for Business Insider, but 8 out of 10 of his articles were removed from the site.

In 2017, Lira, now calling himself “Coach Red Pill,” transitioned to selling pick-up techniquesand running a blog for men that provided dubious advice on relationships. He had over 300,000 subscribers on YouTube. His blog was criticized for perpetuating stereotypes about women, particularly related to their age and appearance.

Lira eventually relocated to Kharkiv, Ukraine and married a Ukrainian woman.

In November 2021, he deleted most relationship-related videos and began denying reports that Russia was preparing for an invasion.

On Feb. 23, 2022, a day before the invasion, he arrived in Kyiv “on business.” As the full-scale attack unfolded, Lira actively covered events in Ukraine, echoing almost all of Russia’s propaganda points.

Among other things, he accused NATO of “approaching” Russia’s borders, denied the Buchamassacre, spread fakes about biological weapons, and maps from the Russian Ministry of Defense. He claimed that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy used drugs, alleged Ukraine was controlled by neo-Nazis, and insisted that Russia did not shoot at civilians, instead accusing the Armed Forces of Ukraine of war crimes.

Lira was later arrested for violating Ukraine’s laws against justifying Russian aggression against Ukraine. When he was released on bail, he posted a series of videos detailing how he planned to escape the country on a motorcycle and go to Hungary.

He was subsequently detained again.

Their blog vids from Ukraine were quite awful cunty content - repeatedly admitting he's waiting out for the invasion's success in a 5 star hotel there while doxxing any and all local journalists, repeating overheard talk of military tactics, extreme fanboying over Putin and generally being weirdly smug throughout it all as if he's sitting on his newfound nest egg for life. I'd have arrested him from the smugness alone tbh. That and being an online "pick-up artist" of course.

 

[Ag3ma]

Of course, a deflection from the topic at the head because you are too afraid to discuss the topic at the head or Europe's cowardice with regards to Ukraine and Europe backstabbing them when Ukraine fed the world and Europe, and deterrence towards daddy USA saving them.

When there isn't a single US serviceman officially serving on the frontlines for the USA, you've got no grounds to accuse any other country of cowardice. The reality is that the USA no more wants to send any troops to fight Russia than Europe does.

The USA has no major deployments on at the moment - basically just a few thousand in Iraq and Syria. It could very easily whip up a major force if it chose. And none of that bullshit about how it has to keep troops ready for South Korea or Taiwan. It deployed tens of thousands to Iraq and Afghanistan when it felt like it despite Taiwan and South Korea being under threat back then too.

The other thing you really need to be careful of, is that if Americans want to call Europeans cowards, the most likely response you're going to get is hastening the end of any European - American alliance. You can debate facts and reason all you like, but what really changes hearts and minds is emotion. That sort of inflammatory insult means any point you ever wanted to make is dead and lost. They will hear that and just hate you, and hate America more through you, and want less and less to do with it. That was the issue with Trump: all he ever managed was make Europeans dislike and distrust the USA. You want to be mini-Trump, you go do that. But you can also end up crying into your coffee when you alienate your allies and they're not there for you in any sense.

 

[Hades]

Given the sorry state of the Russian army and its equipment I'd say its a safe bet that the vast majority of Russian nukes are no longer functional. The Ukraine invasion showed that the Russian soldiers refuse to upkeep their gear and frequently steal it altogether.

Now one could argue that Russians would never dare mess with the nukes given how vital they are to the regime, but Russian troops and general stole everything that wasn't nailed down right before Putin started an invasion he staked his reputation on. So evidently the thievery and incompetence in the Russian army is so rampant that Putin is unable to control it. And if the Russian army sabotaged and stole their own gear under the logic that the war wouldn't happen then that bodes ill for the nukes since the running logic is that they shouldn't actually be used.

That said I wouldn't want western leaders to bet on it. Its best to just not bet on the future of the planet, and even if most nukes might not work, at least some of them do.

 

[Ag3ma]

Given the sorry state of the Russian army and its equipment I'd say its a safe bet that the vast majority of Russian nukes are no longer functional.

Sure, but they've got ~6,000 on paper. Even if 90% of them don't work, they've still got plenty to thoroughly wreck the USA and Europe. Even if 1% of those 6,000 got through to targets, it would be an utter disaster - especially if they hit cities like London and New York, thus annihilating major centres through which the global economy runs.

So, hands up who's taking that sort of chance?

 

[Silvanus]

Sure, but they've got ~6,000 on paper. Even if 90% of them don't work, they've still got plenty to thoroughly wreck the USA and Europe. Even if 1% of those 6,000 got through to targets, it would be an utter disaster - especially if they hit cities like London and New York, thus annihilating major centres through which the global economy runs.

So, hands up who's taking that sort of chance?

Not to mention the fact that guns and vehicles 1) don't require special containment, being kept in armouries and military garages to which soldiers have routine access; and 2) Will be relatively easy to sell on a black market. These factors don't apply to nuclear weapons.

People being pretty gung-ho about something that could kill hundreds of millions or billions even if a small fraction were in working order.

 

[Gergar12]

To reply to everyone. It takes one million dollars a year in maintenance costs for one warhead. Given how poorly Russia has treated even its most prized military assets. I doubt they even have 1 warhead working based on the previous evidence—(No reactors for the radioactive materials for the fusion warheads).

The EU could have easily done either a no-fly-zone or just straight up booted Russia out of Crimea, and Ukraine. It's as easy as me getting bored with my Skyrim mod-list in an hour. Just don't invade Russia properly so that China can't have Eastern Siberia. But they didn't, and now Putin has combat experience, and has killed hundreds of thousands of European Ukrainians while the rest of Europe looks on. And no I am not Trump I would defend both Ukraine and Tawian where in 2012 Obama stated that needed 70% of the US Navy to counter China, China has only gotten stronger in the naval domain and uses welded landing ships in its civilian ships which will one hundred percent be used to transport armor vehicles to the South of Taiwan. I bet the US would need 70% of its Navy, at least 70-80% of its Air Force, all of the Marine Corps, and a sizeable number of the US Army. Which leaves little room for Europe.

And when and if Russia even if it won't win invades an actual NATO country when Xi has Biden locked down in Asia don't say I didn't warn you.

Economics is temporary, if the EU gets Ukraine they will get a grateful country with some of the best soil in the world, not the UK which is still suffering from delusions of empire like France.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To reply to everyone. It takes one million dollars a year in maintenance costs for one warhead. Given how poorly Russia has treated even its most prized military assets. I doubt they even have 1 warhead working based on the previous evidence—(No reactors for the radioactive materials for the fusion warheads).

Would you gamble any cities on that? Even if a warhead doesn't undergo a fusion reaction, that doesn't mean the fission component won't work, and you don't want one of those in a major populated area. Come to think of it, even if the device totally fizzles, you've got radioactive material scattered around everywhere.

(Not to mention, a chemical arsenal is a lot easier to make and maintain, and also something you don't want used on your cities)

And apparently during the last 10 years Russia has commissioned 5 new ballistic missile submarines.

in 2012 Obama stated that needed 70% of the US Navy to counter China, China has only gotten stronger in the naval domain and uses welded landing ships in its civilian ships which will one hundred percent be used to transport armor vehicles to the South of Taiwan. I bet the US would need 70% of its Navy, at least 70-80% of its Air Force, all of the Marine Corps, and a sizeable number of the US Army. Which leaves little room for Europe.

The US still spends, by far, the most money on its military, almost 3 times the amount of China, which is at number 2.

And when and if Russia even if it won't win invades an actual NATO country when Xi has Biden locked down in Asia don't say I didn't warn you.

If Russia invades a NATO member, it doesn't just "not win", the consequences are much more dire than that. That's kinda the point of NATO.

 

[Satinavian]

The EU could have easily done either a no-fly-zone or just straight up booted Russia out of Crimea, and Ukraine.

If the US had pushed for a no-fly-zone, the Europeans would have taken part.

The EU is not a military alliance. The military alliance of most of its countries is the NATO, an alliance made specifically for the purpose to counter Russia and offer protection from it.
But that protection only works if a war against Russia is NATOs war. So you can bet that no European country will start a war against Russia in a way that does not alloe to trigger the alliance defense clause. Which will compell the US to take part of the war.

I get that you want Russia countered without expending US assets. But that is not in the cards. If the US retreats from Europe and stops offering protection from Russia, NATO is dead because there is no reason for European countries to participate anymore. And it will take at least a decade to replace it with a weaker European version. Which will also not start a war against Russia, because the "weaker version" bit.


The US invoked NATO art.5 against Afghanistan and European soldiers bled for American follies there- And the first time Russia, the primary threat to European countries does actually do something to their neighbors, you want the US to retreat from the conflict, abandon you allies and let the Europeans do it alone ? How dishonest and cowardly.

The "but China" excuse might fly if China actually had a war going and the US was deploying troops to fight them. But that is not the case.

 

[Elijin]

Armchair general doing his napkin math then saying "Yeah, checks out, let's risk nuclear war."

 

[Bedinsis]

Oh, hey, Turkey approved of Sweden's accession to NATO, and Hungary seemed eager to not be the last country to approve.

Which is a bit off topic but closely enough related that I hope nobody minds.