[Rancid]

That is only if you limit yourself to the cost of the weapon itself and not the cost of actually using it. If Russia uses it, the backlash is going to be such powerful that it will likely put the existence of the country itself in peril. Now, tell me that it is cheap .

Putin says America set a precedent, and he is right. But he is wrong about the precedent that America set. The precedent that America set is, America ended the largest war in human history, and despite being involved on multiple wars ever seen (Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) including wars that America essentially lost, America has not ever dared to use one again, that is the precedent that was set, the precedent of having a capability, and deciding that it is too terrifying to use it. The precedent of admitting we cannot keep fighting vietnam or iraq and because we are not "winning" willing to go "there" we withdraw rather than escalate (nor that a nuclear detonation would have made a difference in either case). So no, America did not set a precedent for using the bombs, America set a precedent for refusing to use it, even when we have it and even when we are not winning.
Russia is having an Vietnam moment right now, they are suggesting doing the opposite of what america has done.
It would not come cheap for them. Sure, the bomb itself will likely kill more people and destroy more shit than if using bullets or individual "conventional" missiles. But the cost does not stop with the bang, the further sanctions, the escalations of war and possible NATO involvement, the posibility that india and China might cut them off whatever lifeline they are offering currently... that is measured in billions, perhaps even trillions of dollars. It would probably be the most expensive detonation in history.

You're talking to @ingliz though. Putin Cuck #1

[Rich]

Putin says America set a precedent, and he is right. But he is wrong about the precedent that America set. The precedent that America set is, America ended the largest war in human history, and despite being involved on multiple wars ever seen (Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) including wars that America essentially lost, America has not ever dared to use one again, that is the precedent that was set, the precedent of having a capability, and deciding that it is too terrifying to use it. The precedent of admitting we cannot keep fighting vietnam or iraq and because we are not "winning" willing to go "there" we withdraw rather than escalate (nor that a nuclear detonation would have made a difference in either case). So no, America did not set a precedent for using the bombs, America set a precedent for refusing to use it, even when we have it and even when we are not winning.
Russia is having an Vietnam moment right now, they are suggesting doing the opposite of what America has done.

America did not end the largest war in history through the use of nuclear weapons. The biggest theater of the war had already ended and Japan's complete defeat was inevitable. It might have shortened the war, probably by a few weeks at most, maybe not even that.

The main justification for using nuclear weapons was to save American service men's lives. An American service man's life was considered to be many times more valuable than the lives of Japanese civilians, women and children and the many foreign slave workers who were living in Japan. I'm not saying the American President was wrong to do this. If I was to fight in an army I would want the Commander in Chief to value my life above the lives not just above the lives of the enemy but also innocent civilians. just that it contradicts the strict moral absolutist standards that we demand of our enemies but not of ourselves or our allies.

Behind the scenes America threatened to use nuclear weapons on a number of occasions. America had to give this up after the SU got ICBMs because the threat no longer had credibility. Vietnam is nothing like the current situation. No American considered Vietnam as part of the United States sacred territory. America has not allowed other American countries to freely choose their alliances and Cuba has been under sanctions for sixty years for disobeying the United State's will. Again don't get me wrong, I think the US should have flat out invaded Cuba, I supported the invasion of Grenada, Panama and the overthrow of Saddam. But please for God's sake spare us this nonsense about international law and respect for a rule based order.

[Robert Urbanek]

Nuclear weapons convoy sparks fears Putin could be preparing test to send ‘signal to the West’
Train operated by secretive nuclear division spotted in central Russia heading towards the front line in Ukraine

-- From The Telegraph (UK), Oct. 3

[Potemkin]

America did not end the largest war in history through the use of nuclear weapons. The biggest theater of the war had already ended and Japan's complete defeat was inevitable. It might have shortened the war, probably by a few weeks at most, maybe not even that.

The main justification for using nuclear weapons was to save American service men's lives. An American service man's life was considered to be many times more valuable than the lives of Japanese civilians, women and children and the many foreign slave workers who were living in Japan. I'm not saying the American President was wrong to do this. If I was to fight in an army I would want the Commander in Chief to value my life above the lives not just above the lives of the enemy but also innocent civilians. just that it contradicts the strict moral absolutist standards that we demand of our enemies but not of ourselves or our allies.

Behind the scenes America threatened to use nuclear weapons on a number of occasions. America had to give this up after the SU got ICBMs because the threat no longer had credibility. Vietnam is nothing like the current situation. No American considered Vietnam as part of the United States sacred territory. America has not allowed other American countries to freely choose their alliances and Cuba has been under sanctions for sixty years for disobeying the United State's will. Again don't get me wrong, I think the US should have flat out invaded Cuba, I supported the invasion of Grenada, Panama and the overthrow of Saddam. But please for God's sake spare us this nonsense about international law and respect for a rule based order.

Never underestimate the political usefulness of hypocrisy, @Rich. Our lords and masters are not quite as self-delusional as you seem to think they are. They know their pious platitudes are bullshit, but the masses eat up bullshit as though it’s the ambrosia of the gods. So long as the masses keep eating it up, they’ll keep shovelling the bullshit….

[Wels]

Some thoughts

Antonovsky bridge in the state it is, unusable.
Limited water crossing capacity, mass surrender or worse in Kherson.
Russia, already shocked by the mounting losses, confronted with an unprecedented type of loss in this war.
Trapped equipment that can't cross the river, the amount of equipment Ukraine will seize in this operation will be enormous.

"It will supply Ukraine for the next phase of campaign. Massive windfall. Some of it has been sitting for a long time already. It's not going anywhere and they are not destroying this stuff. High-end stuff. SAMs, EW, armor."

[Wels]

US announces new $625 million military aid package in a conversation with Zelensky

- 4 HIMARS installations and ammunition;
- 16 155-mm howitzers (M777?);
- 16 105-mm howitzers;
- 200 MRAP MaxxPro machines;
- 75,000 155-mm shells;
- 500 high-precision 155-mm shells (M982 Excalibur?!);
- 1,000 155-mm RAAMS shells;
- 30,000 120-mm mines;
- 200,000 cartridges for small arms;
- equipment for setting obstacles;
- Claymore mines;
- other equipment.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Release...e-for-ukraine/

[Wels]

Ukrainian Forces liberated the settlements of Davydiv Brid, Dudchany, Velyka Oleksandrivka, Arkhanhelske, and Starosillya
Within three days Ukrainian Forces successfully advanced 35km South along the Dnipro River

Confirmed https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/stat...86369520472064

[Rugoz]

Hmm, do you think that the opinions would have changed after the actual ousting of the President by an armed mob in coordination with FIS..? Do you think opinions would have shifted after the Ukrainian state security apparatus seemed to collude with the hooligans who killed 39 Russians at the Odessa union building in May?

I literally wrote after the 2014 revolution.

... and the subsequent 8 years of warfare likely changed a lot of minds.

Yes, not in favour of Russia at all, at least not in the parts controlled by Ukraine. In the occupied Donbas it's more uncertain (e.g. people respond differently depending on who asks).

Which is why the referendums in 2014 yielded the results that they did..

Is this some kind of sad joke?

..and, even now, the Wikipedia article has the famous blip from a German journalist stating...

So out of 4 polls you pick the one labeled "unscientific" as evidence. If "unscientific" means non-representative, which it probably does, it's worthless. The source is paywalled by the way.

It also seems illogical that the wealthy industrial heartland that is getting fleeced by organized crime that controls much politics & commerce in the area wouldn't want to be integrated into a wealthier, less corrupt country that could presumably solve that problem. Cue the response "are you suggesting Russia is NOT CORRUPT? What about MUH DEMOCRACY?[/i]"

About that, here's a funny article:
https://www.workersliberty.org/story/20 ... nds-donbas

[QatzelOk]

There are many great parts of the speech, but this one is my favorite:

..Western elites not only deny national sovereignty and international law. Their hegemony has pronounced features of totalitarianism, despotism and apartheid. They brazenly divide the world into their vassals – the so-called civilised countries – and all the rest, who, according to the designs of today’s Western racists, should be added to the list of barbarians and savages. False labels like “rogue country” or “authoritarian regime” are already available, and are used to stigmatise entire nations and states, which is nothing new. There is nothing new in this: deep down, the Western elites have remained the same colonisers. They discriminate and divide peoples into the top tier and the rest.

We have never agreed to and will never agree to such political nationalism and racism. What else, if not racism, is the Russophobia being spread around the world? What, if not racism, is the West’s dogmatic conviction that its civilisation and neoliberal culture is an indisputable model for the entire world to follow? “You’re either with us or against us.” It even sounds strange.

Western elites are even shifting repentance for their own historical crimes on everyone else, demanding that the citizens of their countries and other peoples confess to things they have nothing to do with at all, for example, the period of colonial conquests.

It is worth reminding the West that it began its colonial policy back in the Middle Ages, followed by the worldwide slave trade, the genocide of Indian tribes in America, the plunder of India and Africa, the wars of England and France against China, as a result of which it was forced to open its ports to the opium trade. What they did was get entire nations hooked on drugs and purposefully exterminated entire ethnic groups for the sake of grabbing land and resources, hunting people like animals. This is contrary to human nature, truth, freedom and justice.

While we – we are proud that in the 20th century our country led the anti-colonial movement, which opened up opportunities for many peoples around the world to make progress, reduce poverty and inequality, and defeat hunger and disease....

https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2022 ... ins-speech

Putin has nailed the West and its long history of creating racism towards a people that it wants to colonize or genocide. How can the world trust or work with a nation that is hooked on genocide and plunder?

The Maidan coup d'état demonstrated that the West will destroy the world if it isn't stopped. The West that killed off hundreds of other nations .... with no remorse ... has its sites on Russia and China now. These two nations are much stronger than the Cherokee or Apache were.

[Igor Antunov]

Saudis and Russia have agreed on massive coordinated OPEC oil production cuts.

The 300,000 troops mobilization has turned into 370,000 (70,000 volunteers showed up). The first of them won't be entering war zones until end of October.

EU and US financial systems are collapsing.

Oh and by the way, winter is coming.

[Drlee]

None of what Igor wrote is true. It is all lies. That is what he does.

[JohnRawls]

Saudis and Russia have agreed on massive coordinated OPEC oil production cuts.

The 300,000 troops mobilization has turned into 370,000 (70,000 volunteers showed up). The first of them won't be entering war zones until end of October.

EU and US financial systems are collapsing.

Oh and by the way, winter is coming.

Biden agreed massive oil and gas production increases. If Iran gets liberated then things are going to be even more fun.

[Verv]

:eh:

I literally wrote after the 2014 revolution.

The Pew poll vaguely refers to collecting the opinions in the Spring of 2014.

Pew is also something that has likely been infiltrated and functions as an asset of US regime media. We also know that one of the biggest budget items of the historic CIA is media influencing:

In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA’s covert operations budget. Some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates. (The Millenium Report)

What are the odds that during a massive protest movement that could turn an entire country away from the Russian sphere of influence towards the West that there was not media-related work being done by the CIA in an attempt to lay the groundwork for their plans..?

Do you really think the leaders of NATO were not intending to influence these things?

There's literally leaked phonecalls of Vickie Nuland talking about setting up a transition government. They are calling the shots on the state that is not even yet their official client/puppet (Whatever you want to call it)... You would imagine that the CIA, doing their homework, would not get their media assets to create disinformation?

... Or are you of the opinion that only Russia would ever dare to create a false narrative and have biased media..?

Yes, not in favour of Russia at all, at least not in the parts controlled by Ukraine. In the occupied Donbas it's more uncertain (e.g. people respond differently depending on who asks).

Or not. The opinion seems to be that the desire is to leave a country which is much poorer and more corrupt than Russia, and one that ousted a political leader they supported at rates of 90%+ according to their own election in 2010.

Can you imagine a scenario where the people who voted overwhelmingly in favor of the elected President don't get super pissed when he is removed from power for policies that are actually reflective of their own ethnic and linguistic allegiance..?

So out of 4 polls you pick the one labeled "unscientific" as evidence. If "unscientific" means non-representative, which it probably does, it's worthless. The source is paywalled by the way.

I brought up a poll that was hyperspecific to the Referendum, and was done by a German media source, and was targeting people in the relevant region, as opposed to Kiev/Washington backed/based research that was "in the Spring" and targeting "Easterners."

Would you like to enjoy it out from under the paywall? Here it is at archive.today.

[Rich]

If Iran gets liberated then things are going to be even more fun.

What does that even mean "If Iran gets liberated"? I'm a no cuck Pagan. I'd love to have a holy war of all the Pagans against the Abrahamics and the Communists, against anyone who infringes on our rights. But struggles have to be based in reality. Outside of the Hindus and a few Buddhists who would be up for such a struggle. And most of those who really are up for a fight want to impose their own form of tyranny.

In Iraq in 2003 it was very simple. All we had to do was go in, overthrow the Sunni Arab minority and put power in the Shia majority and allow autonomy for Kurdish nationalists from Arab nationalist tyranny. But Iran's not like that. In Britain we had our own 2003 moment, in 1688, we the Protestant majority were liberated from the threat of Papist terrorist tyranny by William Of Orange, peace be upon his name. But as to the liberation of Britain from Christianity as a whole, this has been a centuries long process, that is still not complete. There's no sudden moment of liberation like William of Oranges arrival in London in 1688 or De Gaul's arrival in Paris in 1944.

In Britain our struggle has been against the Christians who have been the enemy of Pagan freedom, Pagan rights and Pagan equality and Communists have been often been our allies in our struggle, although we're now faced with the rising tide of Islamification, but in recent times in East Asia, it has been the Communists who have been the primary enemy of Pagan freedom.

In Ukraine we have a terrible tragedy, the Pagans of the Azov formation fighting the Pagans of the Wagner group.

[Verv]

If Iran gets liberated then things are going to be even more fun.

I would not necessarily bank that on the idea that a theoretical new Iranian regime will slide easily into the West's pocket. I mean, yes, it makes sense to some degree that they would really seek Westernization & secularization as the flashpoint to this whole revolution is "I hate the hijab and the religious police!"

But there are ways to be secular & embrace modernizing perspectives while still being based & independent.



... And, really now, it has to be said that the Islamic Republic of Iran is very much for modernization on conservative Shi'a terms. These are things that maybe you would not recognize as progress but really it's important to truly think outside of the box. This is a country that seems to honestly strive for 1st wave feminism norms... Women vote, have careers, etc., but there is the feeling that men/women have different spheres of natural activity and influence. They even developed a policy where homemakers get to collect a pension even though they have not paid into it due to working at home... It's full of things that I think people would find surprising that are indicators of truly trying to modernize the roles of Muslim women -- they want what an alternative modernity, one in which Islam is supreme.

Is it working? Well, the protests certainly say something, lol. I am only suggesting that it is important to see that there is something more going on here. Even if we are to conclude that "culturally conservative modernity" is basically an oxymoron, let's not be hateful normies and fault the conservatives for trying. What, did you expect the whole of the world to jump into the backseat and just let you drive? LOL, that's why you suck and I would rather go to bat for bad ideas than globalization.

Punk music is beautiful even when it's ugly because it's authentic.

Even if you do one thing right (increasing the bottom line marginally for everyone), it's not a credit to globalization specifically: it's just a credit to technological innovation.

Any attempt at modernization and progress in a way that is alternative to our way is good for the world: localized and self-determined, not globalized-homogenized and with an economic structure that just extracts wealth from the third world and redirects it to Western markets.

The standing globalization model is actually racist: it is the belief that no cultures can actually advance into modernity without the guidance of the west and carefully imitating the modern Anglosphere like good little monkeys. Iran is proof that if there are real efforts towards economic modernization and egalitarian policies aimed at elevating the poor and incorporating rural communities into the prosperity of the nation (and not treating them as colonies of the cities), the status of women, children, the disabled, etc. will naturally improve, even if there are other factors that work against this in some of the policies.

[Rich]

Now I could be wrong, but I suspect most Iranian infidels, most Iranian Atheists and non believers will identify as ethnic Muslims. I think most Iranians will continue to support the Palestinians against the Zionists. They may also continue to sympathise with Hezbollah. In the same way that many members of the Provisional IRA were not Papists, but they continued to be of Irish identity even though they no longer believed in the religion that was the foundation of that ethnic identity.

Even in the unlikely event of a strong non Muslim Aryan / Iranian nationalist identity emerging, I'm not sure that the Western Foreign policy establishment would be entirely comfortable with the result.

[GandalfTheGrey]

just heard a funny story: Russian forces recently dug a big hole and filled them up with barrels. No one knew what was going on - until just now Russian propaganda showed footage of a massive explosion claiming to have blown up a warehouse. People quickly caught on to the fact that it was the same place as the barrels had been buried, which were obviously filled with explosives.

[Igor Antunov]

The west is finished. You will learn to accept that truism in due time.

[Rich]

The west is finished. You will learn to accept that truism in due time.

In my opinion your understanding of the military situation is deluded. Now that wouldn't really matter, you're just some guy on the internet. The problem is that as far as we can tell Putin's view doesn't seem to be that far from your own. Despite all of the military failures Putin still has not recognised the right of Ukraine to exist as an independent state. Putin has been given enough time to show even a minimal level of reasonableness.

Now although in some ways a moderate, in that I was willing to concede territory to Russia, even territory where majority support or at least tolerance for Russian control was very far from certain, I always argued that NATO membership should be non negotiable, that Ukrainian independence from Russia should be complete. In such I have always been implacably opposed to the likes of Meersheimer. That argument is even stronger now with these glorious victories of the Ukrainian military. It is only right that as we have contributed we should share in the glory by Ukraine joining NATO.

We haven't really seen anything like the Mỹ Lai massacre from the Russians let alone the genocidal occupation policies of the Nazis. However one trait that Putin does seem to share with Hitler is the inability to make peace. In this situation we should seek to transfer the control of as many primary resources from the Russians to our allies as possible. This needs to trump considerations of national self determination. If Ukraine can recapture Crimea we should support it. In a strange way we could end up enacting the vision of Hindenburg and Ludendorff. I'm sure they believed that if the given the choice, the the nations of Russia's borderlands would choose the German sphere of influence over the Russian one.

[Rancid]

"A nuclear weapon was used in a war 70+ years ago, so it's ok for Russia to use one today"

How stupid are some of you?