Russia-Ukraine War 2022 - Page 414 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15248992
Negotiator wrote:Besides, the "investigation" is now by NATO. I already know the end result: it will be Russia. Literally the only party which wont benefit from this in any way.


Because it was Russia. Those pipelines were de facto already written off by all parties, hence Putler used it for one of his KGB psyops. It works on idiots like yourself after all.

Remember Russia reduced capacity to 20% and shut it down completely several times in the past months. Officially all because of "maintenance work", which every expert knows is made-up bullshit.

Everything coming out of the Kremlin is lies and deceit aimed at spreading dissent. Fortunately the West is mostly immune to this bullshit at this point and it won't help Putler on the battlefield. Maybe he should have invested more in his military instead of hybrid warfare.
#15248997
Rugoz wrote:Because it was Russia. Those pipelines were de facto already written off by all parties, hence Putler used it for one of his KGB psyops. It works on idiots like yourself after all.

Remember Russia reduced capacity to 20% and shut it down completely several times in the past months. Officially all because of "maintenance work", which every expert knows is made-up bullshit.

Everything coming out of the Kremlin is lies and deceit aimed at spreading dissent. Fortunately the West is mostly immune to this bullshit at this point and it won't help Putler on the battlefield. Maybe he should have invested more in his military instead of hybrid warfare.


Gazprom would have to pay for breach of contract now they can write it off as "Force Mojeure" or at the very least they can say that it wasn't a political decision to stop gas that had a contract agreed on but that just somebody blew it up so they can't.
#15249002
The russian goverment is not even providing tourniquets to their soldier, whats gonna happen when winter arrives in Ukraine... are the russian soldiers supposed to find some roaming tauntauns and open them up to keep warm inside them?

Also... I don't understand the separatists, they want to leave ukraine, a country that is fighting fiercly to protect itself, to join Russia, a country who's men are fleeing? :lol: rofl
By Rich
#15249003
It could have been a number of parties. It could have been the Russians. It could have been agents of American energy companies. In either of those cases, we could see attacks against other under water energy pipelines / cables. I don't know how much of the west's energy infrastructure is under international waters or how vulnerable to attack it is.
#15249006
ingliz wrote:I see one - Armageddon.


Keep simping for Putin. :roll:
User avatar
By Rancid
#15249014
XogGyux wrote:The russian goverment is not even providing tourniquets to their soldier, whats gonna happen when winter arrives in Ukraine... are the russian soldiers supposed to find some roaming tauntauns and open them up to keep warm inside them?

Also... I don't understand the separatists, they want to leave ukraine, a country that is fighting fiercly to protect itself, to join Russia, a country who's men are fleeing? :lol: rofl


I wonder what @Igor Antunov's excuse is now.

He probably won't show up in this thread until the "formal annexation" happens.
By Rugoz
#15249020
JohnRawls wrote:Gazprom would have to pay for breach of contract now they can write it off as "Force Mojeure" or at the very least they can say that it wasn't a political decision to stop gas that had a contract agreed on but that just somebody blew it up so they can't.


Sure, after all capacity was reduced purely for technical and not political reasons and had nothing to do with depriving Europe of gas for the winter, despite Russian propaganda gleefully reporting Europe will freeze to death because no gas.
#15249027
Even after a general exchange of nukes Russia has no chance of winning anything. I think Putin will get the bullet before that happens. If he does use a nuke in Europe the US will destroy his military. We will instantly down his satellites, and maybe sink all his boomers. We could very easily do it. We can also blockade him and China will not lose the western market entirely in some misguided effort to protect a madman. Won't happen.

The last thing Putin wants to do is pop a nuke. Our conventional and diplomatic response would turn Russia into a DPRK overnight. Only without China to with which to trade.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15249033
Drlee wrote:Even after a general exchange of nukes Russia has no chance of winning anything. I think Putin will get the bullet before that happens. If he does use a nuke in Europe the US will destroy his military. We will instantly down his satellites, and maybe sink all his boomers. We could very easily do it. We can also blockade him and China will not lose the western market entirely in some misguided effort to protect a madman. Won't happen.

The last thing Putin wants to do is pop a nuke. Our conventional and diplomatic response would turn Russia into a DPRK overnight. Only without China to with which to trade.


Indeed.
If Russia uses nukes. Putin will turn this failure into an even bigger failure. At that point, all bets are off, and the Russian Putinist state will be destroyed. We will see the breakup of the east, we will see China swoop in to annex parts of the east, and to manipulate/colonize all the brand new nations that are formed in the east. The Russian military will be reduced to nearly nothing, and the Russian state will collapse. Hopefully, replaced with something freer and friendlier and more aligned with the rest of the Europe.

The nukes is a total Bluff. Putin knows this shit. Even if it isn't, fuck him.
By Rich
#15249036
If Putin was to escalate in terms of NBC, it would surely make sense to use chemical. I'm not saying this would work for him or that it wouldn't back fire, just that is seems a more plausible path of escalation and it might then make the threat of going nuclear more credible and scare the West into pressuring Ukraine to come to the negotiating table.

Anyway I think at the very least behind the scenes our governments should be looking to set Poland up as a nuclear weapons power. The ideal would be for Ukraine to have nuclear weapons, but the setting up of a second strike nuclear deterrent in Ukraine would be quite a task in the current situation.
#15249037
I am wondering what he plans on doing with all those mobilized conscripts? Is he going to hold them back and plan for an offensive and then throw them into the fire? Or will he send those conscripts immediately to the front? Also, his actions to me, when examining them, suggests he could use nukes to prevent those annexed territories that are holding sham referendums from being taken by Ukraine.

I think he also knows we will intervene if he does use nukes. It's hard to say if he will use nukes. He might be planning to use those mobilized conscripts to protect those annexed territories from a Ukrainian offensive. That way NATO doesn't intervene given he would not be resorting to nukes.

However, I am not sure if they will be able to hold the line against a Ukrainian army that has modern equipment, is much better led, and is battle hardened. The important thing is NATO plans and is prepared for the worst case scenario of Putin using nukes so that NATO is ready to go with a well planned response if he does.
#15249040
Politics_Observer wrote:I am wondering what he plans on doing with all those mobilized conscripts? Is he going to hold them back and plan for an offensive and then throw them into the fire? Or will he send those conscripts immediately to the front? Also, his actions to me, when examining them, suggests he could use nukes to prevent those annexed territories that are holding sham referendums from being taken by Ukraine.

I think he also knows we will intervene if he does use nukes. It's hard to say if he will use nukes. He might be planning to use those mobilized conscripts to protect those annexed territories from a Ukrainian offensive. That way NATO doesn't intervene given he would not be resorting to nukes.

However, I am not sure if they will be able to hold the line against a Ukrainian army that has modern equipment, is much better led, and is battle hardened. The important thing is NATO plans and is prepared for the worst case scenario of Putin using nukes so that NATO is ready to go with a well planned response if he does.


I don't think nukes have any immediate military strategic worth beyond the deterrence/impact fear. Ukranian army is too spread out to make large single booms be particularly effective, its like using a bazooka to hunt a fly, you will definitely kill the fly but it does not make sense to do that. Obviously they could use it on the population supporting the armies with the goal of either forcing a surrender or to discourage the west from helping out. I cannot speak for the likelihood of a ukranian surrender but it would be a blunder for the west, cleary far more powerful than russia, to allow for this sort of intimidation, it would be the equivalent of you not helping your drowning brother because there is a chiwawa on the edge of the pool barking at you, kick the foking chiwawa (not advocating for animal abuse just to be clear, this is all a thought experiment and no chiwawas were harm in the process) and then go help your drowning brother. The use of a nuke would be a clear signal that the Russian federation is finally running on fumes and a clear signal to double down, triple down and disolve the whole shit and then distribute the russian country, part of the territory goes to NATO countries, part to Ukraine, part to china, part to Japan and then a tiny little piece in the center, surrounded by hell, so that the russians can live in their foking inhospitable tundra of a country.
#15249057
So from what I can find on the internet, many of my initial assumptions are wrong.

You dont need a submarine to destroy the pipelines, regular diving gear is perfectly sufficient. The east sea just isnt that deep.

The gear needed to destroy the pipelines would fit onto the smallest fishing boat.

The knowhow needed apparently still implies it was a state operator. It needs to be exactly the right explosive, exactly correctly applied, because these pipelines are extremely resilient. Also they needed to avoid detection both above water and below water, i.e. they would know what monitoring the pipelines exactly have, too.

The repair of the pipeline is actually super hard because the saltwater will fill the whole pipeline and destroy the pipeline from inside. So the pipeline is very likely already lost. It would need to be recreated, which will take a very long time and be very expensive.


However, other assumptions of mine seem to be true.

Cui bono also still says the USA did it. They benefit from it many times over.

Not only wouldnt it make sense for Russia to destroy their own pipelines, which are after all very expensive, very hard to replace, are now probably destroyed for good, but even worse the pipelines have been the ace in the sleeve for Russia to get peace with Europe again. This is now gone. Russia has no benefit from this, not even as a false flag.

And Joe Biden has suggested at least two times early this year the USA will destroy the pipelines if it comes to it. Nuland has also suggested once around the same time that the Nordstream pipelines wont be available anymore. And the CIA has "warned" Germany in summer that somebody may destroy the pipelines.


So it seems that the USA was it.

The question is now how will Russia react to this.

Also, now the first person has done it - how many copycats will do it, too. After all, theres quite a bit more down there in the sea that one could destroy. Not all as hard to destroy as gas pipelines.


Winter is coming.




P.s.: Oh and yes, the mainstream media will blame Russia. Obviously. And the "investigations" by NATO, i.e. the people who did it, will result in the claim that Russia did it. Obviously. Just if anyone actually wonders.
#15249072
JohnRawls wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IQJY5SsJ64&ab_channel=BPGProductions




The movie is not historic correct.


Just 20 000 NKWD commandos hold at first the line against the Nazis until reinforment came. If Stalingrad/Wolgograd had fallen the way to the Caucaus (the main oilproducer in this time) would be open... Chechens would join them and Azeris too... Azeris were killing in the Warsaw Ghetto Jews... a Jew said in a German Forum the Chechen mercanaries fought to to last man standing in front of Auschwitz.


Moscow was not taken because T-32 was mass produced... Stalins Russia has no lack of tanks but should have lack of rifles???



Putin was KGB agent (mix of FBI and CIA), he has no clue about heavy weapons just pistols, the military secret service has a clue about warfare.



EDIT: Hitler had no oil, Caucaus was the Saudi-Arabia of this time.
Last edited by Sandzak on 30 Sep 2022 05:28, edited 6 times in total.
#15249073
Negotiator wrote:So from what I can find on the internet, many of my initial assumptions are wrong.

You dont need a submarine to destroy the pipelines, regular diving gear is perfectly sufficient. The east sea just isnt that deep.

The gear needed to destroy the pipelines would fit onto the smallest fishing boat.

The knowhow needed apparently still implies it was a state operator. It needs to be exactly the right explosive, exactly correctly applied, because these pipelines are extremely resilient. Also they needed to avoid detection both above water and below water, i.e. they would know what monitoring the pipelines exactly have, too.

The repair of the pipeline is actually super hard because the saltwater will fill the whole pipeline and destroy the pipeline from inside. So the pipeline is very likely already lost. It would need to be recreated, which will take a very long time and be very expensive.


However, other assumptions of mine seem to be true.

Cui bono also still says the USA did it. They benefit from it many times over.

Not only wouldnt it make sense for Russia to destroy their own pipelines, which are after all very expensive, very hard to replace, are now probably destroyed for good, but even worse the pipelines have been the ace in the sleeve for Russia to get peace with Europe again. This is now gone. Russia has no benefit from this, not even as a false flag.

And Joe Biden has suggested at least two times early this year the USA will destroy the pipelines if it comes to it. Nuland has also suggested once around the same time that the Nordstream pipelines wont be available anymore. And the CIA has "warned" Germany in summer that somebody may destroy the pipelines.


So it seems that the USA was it.

The question is now how will Russia react to this.

Also, now the first person has done it - how many copycats will do it, too. After all, theres quite a bit more down there in the sea that one could destroy. Not all as hard to destroy as gas pipelines.


Winter is coming.




P.s.: Oh and yes, the mainstream media will blame Russia. Obviously. And the "investigations" by NATO, i.e. the people who did it, will result in the claim that Russia did it. Obviously. Just if anyone actually wonders.


Very good and informative post - I liked all of it except the ASOIAF/GoT reference, lol. I enjoyed the book series a lot but one of the worst fandoms in human history was Game of Thrones admirers. I won't even say the show was bad but... The phrase 'winter is coming' is ruined for me, and I am permanently biased against Daenerys Targaryen because I feel like she was depicted in a way that clashed very much with what I envisioned and she was often the chief culprit of cringe...

But back to topic:

It would almost seem certain that it was the USA because they will also benefit greatly if northern Europe is now looking very much to them for long-term solutions for energy issues and never going back to Russia to negotiate a deal.

Some people might think that this bodes ill for Russia in the long-term but the fact of the matter is that the energy market is massive and it's not like other parts of the world are gong to refuse to do business with them for good resources at a reasonable price. If anything, the restructuring of the global economy will weaken American empire & NATO - not greatly, but it's just a fact that the world seems to be becoming more multipolar.
#15249092
Verv wrote:If anything, the restructuring of the global economy will weaken American empire & NATO - not greatly, but it's just a fact that the world seems to be becoming more multipolar.



It is. deglobalization has been happening since covid. Thus, there would be no point in maintaining the American empire save a few select regions.

People that hate America, should want Russia to lose.
#15249094
I do not think we are becoming less aligned I think we are becoming more. And the Russian demonstration that a more powerful nation (one would have thought) could attack another with impunity, has compelled nations to align with more powerful nations. Clearly the Scandinavian countries are more firmly aligned with NATO/EU than they were a year ago. The US is thought to be much more powerful than it was a year ago.

Seriously. One could certainly say that Russia's unprovoked invasion of its neighbor has done worlds of good in restoring the US's reputation after the diplomacy dumpster fire that was the Trump administration.
#15249098
There's so many levels and perspectives, and even so many different timelines that the Ukraine conflict actually has to be discussed from... Yet, so many people want you to only take a limited view that has many silly sacred cows in it, and there's a lot of drama.

What if I told you that this is how war is needlessly perpetuated? This is even why wars start in the first place?

So, elephant in the room: I would suggest that the Ukraine sunk into civil war in 2014 due to major geopolitical problems that were exacerbated by the USA/NATO. Think for a minute: can you tell me with a straight face that the CIA is always doing the right thing because they are warriors for democracy and justice?

When you look at the 2010 election map, you see Luhansk & Donetsk voted 90%+ for the pro-Moscow President who was ousted in the "Revolution of Dignity" ... All the regions next to them had 80%+ vote rates for the same President. Is it really beyond the pale to expect that Russian speakers in the poorest & one of the most corrupt countries in all of Europe would desire to break away from it?

I try to keep this in my mind when I think about the situation in the Ukraine.

Is my description of the circumstances facing Luhansk & Donetsk inaccurate? If it is, it should certainly be amended.

I can otherwise say that, yes, being skeptical of Russia is good, and being skeptical of any major superpower is also good.

But it seems right off that the situation is significantly more complicated than it is being treated, which is why it is so surprising to me that I have seen many people who are otherwise very pacifistic and anti-interventionist uncritically embrace such a pro-war party line.

Any lasting peace has to be built on solid ground, its basis must be truth, and it must involve sensitivity to local interests even when they do not align with Zelenskyy and NATO.

Putin is wrong if he wishes to subjugate Kiev... But wouldn't Kiev be wrong if they wished to subjugate Luhansk & Donetsk?
  • 1
  • 412
  • 413
  • 414
  • 415
  • 416
  • 475
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

It would be a foolish act for the Ukrainians to a[…]

Sweden has been saying, privately, that Russia did[…]

You'd think a guy who advocates for pre-agricultu[…]

Iran Protests

Oh, gee, okay, I guess now I'm *obligated* to ask[…]