Ukraine 21: On the Attack with a Giant Phallic Spear

[The Anti-Targ]

39 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Folks, rich people have their own world. It relates to you in only the most distal (geologic usage) of ways. 

Mr. Musk gave his starlights (or whatever) to Ukraine's use because it benefitted him to do so at the time. He makes this new advocation because it benefits him newly. 

Your conceptions of rightness, wrongness, morality, or consistency has nothing to do with the way Mr. Musk and your masters live their lives. Discussing it at all is a fools errand. Keep your eyes on the ground and stop looking at the motives of your betters. You'll be happier for it. 

 

I was thinking more of the gastroenterological usage.

 

41 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

He's not a pacifist. He's just a coward who fears the destruction of the earth before he can flee to Mars. It's especially weird because he's supposedly doing this to avoid countless loss of lives despite buying into Bostrom's super sketch theories of maximizing future virtual human happiness at the cost of almost any ethical decision right now. 

 

My point was attempting to be, even with the most charitable interpretation of his motivations his suggestions make no sense. I possibly failed in conveying that.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Safe bet this never just blows over, hence why I said from the jump to expect a long war, and that's when Ukraine was heavily outmatched. This war will likely be the most impactful event in every Ukrainians' life and will affect how they view the world for decades to come.

It's not an inevitability that we are in for a long, a la Viet Nam, the WWs, Iran/Iraq wars. The Russian venture could collapse very quickly. Ukraine, it can be surmised it is committed for however long it takes. So it really comes down to Russian stamina. If the various mobilisations are shown to be impotent at achieving whatever goals remain for Russia, the thing could fall over before 2023 is finish. If people think just shy of two years is a long war, then that is, perhaps counter-intuitively, testament to how peaceful the world has been for the last few decades.

[Kalbear]

also unrelated. Been reading a few articles about how, fortunately or not, we'll likely know hours or days ahead of a nuclear weapon being deployed and used - partially because it takes a lot of effort to do it, partially because the places they are stored are heavily surveilled, and partially because Biden et al will almost certainly declassify info and spread it around to defuse any false flags or surprises or narratives from Russia like they did early and later on with Russian actions. 

So this is pretty fucking alarming:

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

also unrelated. Been reading a few articles about how, fortunately or not, we'll likely know hours or days ahead of a nuclear weapon being deployed and used - partially because it takes a lot of effort to do it, partially because the places they are stored are heavily surveilled, and partially because Biden et al will almost certainly declassify info and spread it around to defuse any false flags or surprises or narratives from Russia like they did early and later on with Russian actions. 

So this is pretty fucking alarming:

 

 

Get your popcorn ready. This is the reason getting Trump gone was worth anything. Sleepy Joe has top men playing this game for us. All he has to do is go to bed on time and let the professionals do their work.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's not an inevitability that we are in for a long, a la Viet Nam, the WWs, Iran/Iraq wars. The Russian venture could collapse very quickly. Ukraine, it can be surmised it is committed for however long it takes. So it really comes down to Russian stamina. If the various mobilisations are shown to be impotent at achieving whatever goals remain for Russia, the thing could fall over before 2023 is finish. If people think just shy of two years is a long war, then that is, perhaps counter-intuitively, testament to how peaceful the world has been for the last few decades.

Depends on if you're defining this strictly as a hot war. If that's the case, who knows where this goes, but I think it's safe to bet that there will be a prolonged cold war between these two nations, and that's if Russia packed up their shit and left today.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Depends on if you're defining this strictly as a hot war. If that's the case, who knows where this goes, but I think it's safe to bet that there will be a prolonged cold war between these two nations, and that's if Russia packed up their shit and left today.

Zelensky won't survive his first post-war election. The General with the best PR team will take the job in a landslide.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Zelensky won't survive his first post-war election. The General with the best PR team will take the job in a landslide.

Odd hot take. 

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Odd hot take. 

Historically informed opinion. And it was you that prompted it, with your talk of post-war futures. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Can Ukraine and Russia really have a cold war all just to themselves? If Ukraine joins Nato and perhaps even the EU in the not too distant future then it will be a cold war between Russia and everyone west of them, which in case some haven't been paying attention is already happening. So I guess it's more that Ukraine will be officially joining the rest of the west in the current unofficial cold war.

[Varysblackfyre321]

35 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Historically informed opinion. And it was you that prompted it, with your talk of post-war futures. 

Curious on what event’s you’re referencing. I know Churchill got booted from the prime minister post after ww2.

 

[karaddin]

I don't think Jace is wrong in thinking that a perceived war hero will get a huge boost in popularity, I just thought there was a very good chance he's the one that gets seen as the war hero. 

[Jace, Extat]

54 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Curious on what event’s you’re referencing. I know Churchill got booted from the prime minister post after ww2.

 

Truman lost to Eisenhower, Pompey lost to Caesar... 

The list of famous war generals accruing power is longer than human memory.

Eta:

And I lost to history class...

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Truman lost to Eisenhower, Pompey lost to Caesar...

Truman did not lose to Eisenhower.  Truman defeated Dewey in '48 and didn't run in '52.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I don't think Jace is wrong in thinking that a perceived war hero will get a huge boost in popularity, I just thought there was a very good chance he's the one that gets seen as the war hero. 

Ditto.

9 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Truman lost to Eisenhower, Pompey lost to Caesar... 

The list of famous war generals accruing power is longer than human memory.

Pompey...

And fyi Truman didn't run against Eisenhower.

ETA: A multi- evening, Maith.

[Jace, Extat]

U r right 

Very very inebriated 

[Jace, Extat]

Like that's some basic shit

Imma rethink some things 

[polishgenius]

Churchill lost the first post-war election because he tanked his campaign by getting needlessly personal with Atlee and failed to address voter's concerned that a Tory government known to be stingy when in charge before the war wasn't what was needed to rebuild. Zelensky was already there on a remit of rebuilding and reform, so that's not likely to be a problem - the only way he might run into something similar is if a canny opponent manages to skew his relative openness to talk with Russia until the war started as having invited it, but I feel like his response since has been so brilliant that'd be hard. 

[kiko]

5 hours ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Mr. Musk gave his starlights (or whatever) to Ukraine's use because it benefitted him to do so at the time. He makes this new advocation because it benefits him newly. 

 

I learned yesterday that he didn't give anything. The US government paid for Starlink. Like every Musk venture, he claims the kudos and dollars while the tax payer is left with the bill.

[Werthead]

7 hours ago, KalVsWade said:

also unrelated. Been reading a few articles about how, fortunately or not, we'll likely know hours or days ahead of a nuclear weapon being deployed and used - partially because it takes a lot of effort to do it, partially because the places they are stored are heavily surveilled, and partially because Biden et al will almost certainly declassify info and spread it around to defuse any false flags or surprises or narratives from Russia like they did early and later on with Russian actions. 

So this is pretty fucking alarming:

There's been some issues with that reporting. First, the Telegraph has massively ramped up and amplified every alarmist threat coming out of Russia since Day One. They're frequently trending on Twitter with some insane story about the war that is simply BS. They've sometimes misreported comments on tabloid talk shows about destroying Britain with a "nuclear tsunami" as coming directly from the Russian government or military, and their analysis of the shifting fronts and fortunes of the participants has been all over the place. There's a lot of other analysts on Twitter pointing out that Russia has been using personnel from the missile forces on the front line and has been moving them into Ukraine in APC convoys like this one for some time.

Obviously that might not be the case here and they might be really planning something, and we've been saying for a while that Putin might feel he has to make some demonstration, but it's not the immediate "arrgh" moment the Telegraph has been reporting it as. Other venues have been far more circumspect.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

The Ukrainian Kupiansk and Borova battlegroups have met up now. In Kherson, Ukrainians continue pushing south of Dudchany, as the Russians have now regrouped at Mylove/Milove. 

[Which Tyler]

7 hours ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Truman lost to Eisenhower, Pompey lost to Caesar...

Yeah, none of the examples listed are examples of what you're claiming.

 

Churchill lost because he ran a shit campaign - but Churchill was the war hero (from both world wars), and Atlee was a military nothingness. pre-war Churchill was pretty much the precise opposite of pre-war Zelenskyi

 

Truman didn't lose to Eisenhower.

 

Pompey lost battles to Caesar; but he wasn't the leader of Rome, whilst Caesar wasn't elected to replace him - his was a military coup, and Pompey the general brought out of retirement to face him.