Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
I guess I should call BGP a liar then, since he would absolutely do the same to anyone else who makes a simple and fairly innocuous factual error.
PW: Decreases risk of nuclear war.
Skies are very much dangerous, although I imagine most missions will be far from the front lines which is far safer. Probably the biggest threat to the F16s is Ukrainian AD at the moment.
Victor: you still have a lot of other lies to explain. I put them in a concise post, feel free to read it. And it does not seem that Russia agreed to that either. We haven't heard anyone actually present at the negotiatio
Why’re the skies dangerous besides manpads
Victor: thanks for clarifying, now do the rest. While it wasn't so bad holding my breath on Luciom posting the map, I won't be holding my breath on this.
Russia has a ton of air defense. S300s can shoot 200km, S400s are something like 300km+
How was I wrong?
it sure looks like there is virtually no difference between Russia's borders in 1991 and Feb 23. but maybe you could explain it?
minus Crimea that is. as should be understood by the context of the previous posts but I am sure you will start to troll about.
now he will find some Islands in the Bering Strait or wherever that Russia took control of in like 1987 and call me a liar.
it sure looks like there is virtually no difference between Russia's borders in 1991 and Feb 23. but maybe you could explain it?
There is a huge difference in Ukraine borders, ie the 2 "republics" don't exist in 1991 as independent states, they do for Russia (and so for the purposes of the "deal") when they propose the deal, so what they were proposing wasn't "Ukraine keeps its full territorial integrity except Crimea and we go back home", they were proposing "donbas becomes a pupper state of Russia with stationed russian militaries and we keep Crimea as russian as well".
Is that clearer for you?
They were NEVER proposing Ukraine takes back donbas with full sovereignity as in 1991 ok?
Are you trolling? You have been in here for over a year screaming and yelling "UKRO DOMBED THE BOMBASS!" You want me to explain to you the conflict in the Donbas which we have been debating for over a year? We have discussed Azov, both Minsk treaties, Zelenskyy running on ending the conflict in the Donbas, the "No to Capitulation" campaign, Girkin, Euromaidan, and more all relating to Donbas. You're now trying to downplay its significance?
So the "pacifist" proposal was: we keep eating into Ukraine territory, this time with the "independent states" trick (like we did in Georgia), we spend minimal resources (because we get a deal a couple of weeks into the war), we make sure the "independent states" get entrenched and we put russian militaries there, and then we wait for the next time to get more pieces.
Ie a total capitulation of Ukraine , and the west, to Putin requests while leaving him in a good spot resource-wise, ready to expand that approach to Moldova ("separatist region") and Georgia in various ways, because the Ukraine front is dealt with.
There is a huge difference in Ukraine borders, ie the 2 "republics" don't exist in 1991 as independent states, they do for Russia (and so for the purposes of the "deal") when they propose the deal, so what they were proposing wasn't "Ukraine keeps its full territorial integrity except Crimea and we go back home", they were proposing "donbas becomes a pupper state of Russia with stationed russian militaries and we keep Crimea as russian as w
all I said was that "Russia agreed to withdraw to 1991 borders minus Crimea". it seems that 1991 RUSSIAN borders are virtually the same as the Feb 23rd borders in this context.
I didnt say anything about giving Ukraine full sovereignty or territorial integrity or the breakaway Republics. thats a different thing.
Don't forget Ukraine must reduce its military to 3 tanks and policemen with batons and Russia gets to veto any foreign military aid.
It's unfortunate Boris Johnson talked them out of it, not that it was legal to begin with or even feasible.
all I said was that "Russia agreed to withdraw to 1991 borders minus Crimea". it seems that 1991 RUSSIAN borders are virtually the same as the Feb 23rd borders in this context.
I didnt say anything about giving Ukraine full sovereignty or territorial integrity or the breakaway Republics. thats a different thing.
And we know that Russia did not agree to this. In fact it's unlikely they agreed to withdraw at all.
I do not know what context you are referring to where this extremely important area which has been integral to the conflict since it began is no longer important and is virtually non existent all of a sudden.
well according what Fiona Hill claims she was told by Senior US diplomats.
That's quite a different story from the "various negotiators have come forward" claim. And we all know how much faith you place in anonymous senior us diplomats. I'm pretty sure you rank them #2, just under western world leaders as far as trustworthiness and being accurate.
Yes, almost two years ago, as info was beginning to come out about the negotiations, she might have been told this. Two years later now, with first hand accounts from people who were actually there, and far better analysis the same publication stated:
The talks had deliberately skirted the question of borders and territory. Evidently, the idea was for Putin and Zelensky to decide on those issues at the planned summit. It is easy to imagine that Putin would have insisted on holding all the territory that his forces had already occupied. The question is whether Zelensky could have been convinced to agree to this land grab.
This had been explained to you multiple times now, yet you come in here confident stating that
How much confidence do you put into those anonymous senior US diplomats that you normally despise, even after we have more accurate info from first hand accounts which directly contradict it? Because you sound quite confident in the two posts here.
Or is this yet another instance of you coming back and restating debunked nonsense like its fact despite having nothing new to add because it suits the narrative you want to believe?
If this is true I will lol heartily.
This is the best analysis I've found:
That's quite a different story from the "various negotiators have come forward" claim. And we all know how much faith you place in anonymous senior us diplomats. I'm pretty sure you rank them #2, just under western world leaders as far as trustworthiness and being accurate.
Yes, almost two years ago, as info was beginning to come out about the negotiations, she might have been told this. Two years later now, with first hand accounts from peo
evidently
Yep. It's your little schtick. We got the August one in early, I wonder if we'll get to see two this month if we won't see it brought up again until September. At least political powerhouse BoJo scuttling the peace deal wasn't mentioned except in jest.
I would suggest learning the meaning of "evidently" and "debunked".
About 1000 Ukrainian troops, with armour and air support (not yet F-16s according the the video seen), appear to have made a successful border incursion into Russia and gained control of Sudzha, which houses a control hub for the East-West gas pipeline. The Kremlin is predictably a bit put out. Exactly what the Ukrainians are up to, and how long they plan to maintain the incursion, they aren't saying.
heres the thing, you dont need to take cheap shots at me when I havent even posted in the thread for days on end. but when you do, guess what I will come and "debunk" your "evident" bullshit.
