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.
of course Canada etc are tributary states of the united states. its not a word people use because it sounds bad. They defend us and we pay them by allowing them to have the worlds currency/petro dollar which pumps up the value of their economy and people. What do you think a tributary state is. Also Its a great arrangement for Canada personally. Ukraine wants to be one because it rocks. its a huge reason for the war
As Fiona Hill is getting a few mentions. She has a key role in the UK defense review
The Strategic Defence Review will be delivered at pace and report in the first half of 2025, with work starting immediately in recognition of the urgency of the threats facing the UK. It comes as the Defence Secretary John Healey argues that “at the start of a new era for Britain, we need a new era for defence. The Review will strengthen the foundations for this new mission-driven Government.”
With a new era requiring a new type of review, the Strategic Defence Review will be headed by three external Reviewers in a first-of-its-kind for UK defence:
Lord Robertson - Former Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General (Review lead)
Dr Fiona Hill CMG - Foreign policy expert and former US presidential advisor
General Sir Richard Barrons – Former Commander Joint Forces Command and former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff
of course Canada etc are tributary states of the united states. its not a word people use because it sounds bad. They defend us and we pay them by allowing them to have the worlds currency/petro dollar which pumps up the value of their economy and people. What do you think a tributary state is. Also Its a great arrangement for Canada personally. Ukraine wants to be one because it rocks. its a huge reason for the war
You're using the term in a manner that makes it useless. The reason I suspect is because you wish to make thinly veiled digs and insults and also claim conspiracies and puppeteering without offering evidence. However, while a vassal state can be a somewhat hazy term, it certainly isn't merely a state that enjoys the benefits of agreements with a richer and more powerful state. This generally denotes an alliance. And yes, large and powerful nations do also need alliances with smaller ones, the world isn't a game of Civilization 6.
A vassal state is generally one that has little to no power over its foreign affairs and where the dominating state through various means effectively have complete control over the local government if they so choose. While someone might want to make that claim insultingly, it would be a very poor description of US-Canada relations.
Other than that, vassal states simply really that common anymore, they generally just cause headaches because the dominating state has to take responsibility for a government you aren't part of. There are some protectorates still, but they tend to be very small and have limited ability to cause much headache. Perhaps the closest you get these days is Belarus which has very limited ability to stray from Russian geopolitical interest.
The rise of the nation-state in the 1800s and 1900s also meant that most empires are now gone. Perhaps with the exception of Russia whose geographical landmass is pretty much the remnant of a colonial empire that never disbanded and still brutally oppresses those nations who wish independence (or wants to brutally oppress those nations that actually gained independence, as it wishes to do with Ukraine). Its irredentist policies is also very much imperialist in nature.
Victor: stop crying. I am aware what "evidently" and "debunked" mean. I don't care how long you take a break for. I care that you keep coming in here and posting nonsense just like this. What confidence level do you have for the thing you have been asserting as 100% fact, because it is not 100% fact. It is closer to 0%. This is the 15th time you've come in here doing this. You got banned for a month for this. Not only are you not providing any new evidence for your debunked nonsense. And yes the BoJo "scuttling" the deal was debunked, Ukraine warmongering Nazis refusing the deal so they could war was debunked, the USA is at fault angle (somehow?) was debunked, Ukrainians at the conference claimed that Putin offered to retreat to 1991 borders was debunked.
If you want to stick to your semantics argument that "Well it's close to 0 probability, but none of us was there so we don't really know and it's not really debunked", then mention that next time you state it as fact: "No one at the conference has claimed this, they all claimed they couldn't sign the agreement as laid out anyways because it was illegal, they all claimed Putin wasn't negotiating in good faith anyways. There's no actual evidence for this claim I'm about to state as fact except for some anonymous sources as news of the conference was initially coming out which have been contradicted multiples times since by the people who were actually there, and the publication which initially posted it."
Evidently that passes your test for stating as fact, yet things like Wagner using cannon fodder doesn't pass your test. It's ridiculous man, it's been ridiculous for over a year. Your entire angle has been debunked multiple times, yet each time you come back an state it as fact again and again and again. This is all done in an effort to claim that The West or Ukraine is the cause of this war at this point, and not Russia, the invading country. If someone were to read your posts and come to the conclusion that you are not the most biased posted ITT then it would be pretty clear that they are not a serious person. If you're going as far as to call pointing out your bias "bullshit", then you are not a serious person. It is beyond me why you haven't been removed this thread. You do nothing to add serious conversation to any topic that you engage in. The only conclusion I can come up to is the one that other posters have stated: mods give you special privileges because you've been posting here for so long.
Do better.
Victor: stop crying. I am aware what "evidently" and "debunked" mean. I don't care how long you take a break for. I care that you keep coming in here and posting nonsense just like this. What confidence level do you have for the thing you have been asserting as 100% fact, because it is not 100% fact. It is closer to 0%. This is the 15th time you've come in here doing this. You got banned for a month for this. Not only are you not providing
very abusive posting from you as usual. also, you evidently dont know the meaning of debunked.
but good job finally admitting what we all knew about my banning.
Apparently "admit" doesn't mean what you think it means. I have no idea what you're saying. Your awful manner of posting got you banned from the thread, not any of the lies about what you claimed happened. Keep lying.
That is not an abusive post. If you think that stating the facts are abusive, then that's a clear indicator that you should change.
You're using the term in a manner that makes it useless. The reason I suspect is because you wish to make thinly veiled digs and insults and also claim conspiracies and puppeteering without offering evidence. However, while a vassal state can be a somewhat hazy term, it certainly isn't merely a state that enjoys the benefits of agreements with a richer and more powerful state. This generally denotes an alliance. And yes, large and powerful
that's alot of text to say nothing. I also used the term tributary which is more accurate since we have more autonomy then a vassal state as long as we pay up and follow their system. There is definitely still an empire my dude why do you think the united states spends 40% of the entire worlds military budget when 28 of the next 30 country's are its "allies". They are just pretty nice about it im not into conspiracy's I just read a lot of history and its quite obvious nothing has really changed it just evolved. also I certainly did not use it as a way "to make thinly veiled digs and insults" I actually love the words system I think we are running pure top 1% of possible realities. I hope I keep being a member of this great empire
that's alot of text to say nothing. I also used the term tributary which is more accurate since we have more autonomy then a vassal state as long as we pay up and follow their system. There is definitely still an empire my dude why do you think the united states spends 40% of the entire worlds military budget when 28 of the next 30 country's are its "allies". They are just pretty nice about it im not into conspiracy's I just read a lot of
I am Italian, you are Canadian if I understand it properly, neither of our countries pay anything to the USA, no tribute, no tributary.
We are still satellites in the soft empire yes. It's soft because it doesn't annex territory, it wants to expand and keep in place trade routes mainly.
In Italy we have american bases and so on.
Neither Italy or Canada can do much in the world stage if the USA disagrees, true.
But we don't pay tribute, we actually freeroll part of their military and healthcare (they pay full price on newly developed drugs, we all pay lower prices) expenses.
Italy and Canada are both free to do whatever they want. They choose to work with USA because it is beneficial to them, when it is beneficial to them.
Italy and Canada are both free to do whatever they want. They choose to work with USA because it is beneficial to them, when it is beneficial to them.
Last time we tried to have our own energy policy the USA assassinated our mastermind behind it (Mattei).
Which is ok I get it, at the time oil was the geopolitical holy grail and we weren't allowed to cut deals with Arab or middle eastern states that weren't in the interest of the USA.
When our prime minister was too communist, the USA assassinated him as well (Moro, thanks for that).
At the time communism in government in a western country was (as it would be today) a direct threat to humanity and any action is justified to prevent that.
But lol at the bold
I am Italian, you are Canadian if I understand it properly, neither of our countries pay anything to the USA, no tribute, no tributary.
We are still satellites in the soft empire yes. It's soft because it doesn't annex territory, it wants to expand and keep in place trade routes mainly.
In Italy we have american bases and so on.
Neither Italy or Canada can do much in the world stage if the USA disagrees, true.
But we don't pay tribute, we actua
When I say we tribute them I mean we agree to make their currency more valuable. If everyone agrees to trade in the us dollar especially for energy then we are artificially holding their dollar value up more then it should be bt making things like debt or inflation meaningless for them. The us petrodollar is the same idea. Also banks/corps . Alot of things in our countries are owned by American banks and financiers.
So essentially we are all paying the united states a 10% vig which they put into their military industrial complex so we don't have too and its a pretty mutually good arrangement tbh.
Tributary/empire didn't die with capitalism it just looks different
Apparently "admit" doesn't mean what you think it means. I have no idea what you're saying. Your awful manner of posting got you banned from the thread, not any of the lies about what you claimed happened. Keep lying.
That is not an abusive post. If you think that stating the facts are abusive, then that's a clear indicator that you should change.
none of your bullying and whining would ever get me to believe what you want me to believe. that must infuriate you but I prefer to be on the right side of accuracy and integrity.
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
how many missiles do you think are being launched at F16s in ukraine/russia? Lets say over the past 30 days, how many do you think were shot at by missiles?
When I say we tribute them I mean we agree to make their currency more valuable. If everyone agrees to trade in the us dollar especially for energy then we are artificially holding their dollar value up more then it should be bt making things like debt or inflation meaningless for them. The us petrodollar is the same idea. Also banks/corps . Alot of things in our countries are owned by American banks and financiers.
So essentially we are al
doesnt canada belong to the UK in some fashion? and the UK owns tons of land there
no they don't own land its mostly symbolic they call it "crownland" unoccupied useless areas basically which is most of Canada but I believe its federally owned not owned by the uk it just kept its old name . commonwealth is just a side group It would be cool if we became more aligned and created canzuk which would let us have an actual geopolitical power but that is unlikely . I wish this thread was more about the day to day and less about the overall politics.
from wiki Less than 11% of Canada's land is in private hands; 41% is federal crown land and 48% is provincial crown land. They might technically own it but they would have to ask our government for it/sell it which will never happen. Its essentially just government owned
Crown land is the equivalent of an entailed estate that passes with the monarchy and cannot be alienated from it; thus, per constitutional convention, these lands cannot be unilaterally sold by the monarch, instead passing on to the next king or queen unless the sovereign is advised otherwise by the relevant ministers of the Crown. Crown land provides the country and the provinces with the majority of their profits from natural resources, largely but not exclusively provincial, rented for logging and mineral exploration rights; revenues flow to the relevant government and may constitute a major income stream, such as in Alberta. Crown land may also be rented by individuals wishing to build homes or cottages.
Kinda just sounds like they are using them to keep the land unowned in government hands to me. I doubt they get the profits from say gold mines found in it for example could be wrong. would be really sus if they did
So Crown Lands belong to The Crown, which is one of three arms of the Canadian government, along with The Senate, and The House of Commons. In reality, Crown lands belong to Canada and Canadians, held in trust by The Monarch. Since she’s rarely here, day to day, Canada’s Governor General is effectively The Monarch, her local representative.
In practice, each province and territory administers all lands within its own region, including Crown lands. The Governor General and Queen Elizabeth have nothing to do with it.
how many missiles do you think are being launched at F16s in ukraine/russia? Lets say over the past 30 days, how many do you think were shot at by missiles?
No indication the F-16s have yet been committed to combat, so probably none. Ukraine only has at most 10 of them available with trained pilots at the moment, and they won't want to throw them away. The aircraft have only been photographed for public view with air-to-air missiles and self-defence pods, but Ukraine does have the US AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile, so when they're ready they could conceivably fly SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) missions against Russian air-defence radars. They could also be integrated with the Anglo-French Storm Shadow / SCALP air-to-ground cruise missile, which Ukraine possesses and which has considerable range, precision and impact.
We don't know what other air-to-ground weapons will be made available, and we don't know how much intelligence, data-sharing and real-time control might be available from, for instance, the NATO AWACS aircraft in theatre, but the Ukrainians are being gifted quite a powerful air force, enough for three combat squadrons and a training squadron plus attrition replacements (once sufficient pilots have been trained not only to fly the aircraft but to use its systems and weapons in tactical situations, and once sufficient technicians have been trained to maintain both aircraft and armament).
The Russian air force is a wasting asset, unable to replace lost jets, so, if the F-16s are sufficiently well manned and equipped, and if they are used wisely (with NATO co-operation), they may eventually make a difference. It's quite a long-term programme.
If this is somehow leading to Ukraine skies being "clear" so you were technically correct that Ukraine would only be allowed to use Ukraine when the skies are "clear", then that is incorrect.
It has been obvious for awhile now that Ukraine would be given f16s to use in this conflict despite the dangers posed to them.
no they don't own land its mostly symbolic they call it "crownland" unoccupied useless areas basically which is most of Canada but I believe its federally owned not owned by the uk it just kept its old name . commonwealth is just a side group It would be cool if we became more aligned and created canzuk which would let us have an actual geopolitical power but that is unlikely . I wish this thread was more about the day to day and less about
Man, Elizabeth died a while ago and your king is now Charles
If this is somehow leading to Ukraine skies being "clear" so you were technically correct that Ukraine would only be allowed to use Ukraine when the skies are "clear", then that is incorrect.
It has been obvious for awhile now that Ukraine would be given f16s to use in this conflict despite the dangers posed to them.
What dangers are those and how do they pose a threat if we are outside of their range and or they never launch attacks against f16s?
no they don't own land its mostly symbolic they call it "crownland" unoccupied useless areas basically which is most of Canada but I believe its federally owned not owned by the uk it just kept its old name . commonwealth is just a side group It would be cool if we became more aligned and created canzuk which would let us have an actual geopolitical power but that is unlikely . I wish this thread was more about the day to day and less about
I think Canada and UK should both just become formal tributaries to the US, and concentrate on supporting the US empire. Canada and UK have the same main problems (socialism and unfettered migration the economy cant support) and I dont really see how combining serves any productive purpose.
man it looks like russia is ukraine. plot twist!
If this is somehow leading to Ukraine skies being "clear" so you were technically correct that Ukraine would only be allowed to use Ukraine when the skies are "clear", then that is incorrect.
It has been obvious for awhile now that Ukraine would be given f16s to use in this conflict despite the dangers posed to them.
Not sure what you're on about, but they'll need the resources to defend the airfields.
