I'd suggest guns, missiles, and militarized drones. Maybe some tanks and stuff. I'm just spit balling here though.
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
47 points (72.0% liked)
World News
32367 readers
595 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Artillery. Artillery wins wars. The role of a soldier in the modern battlefield is a) spot for artillery and b) kill what artillery can't.
Ukraine has been making absolutely devastating use of every piece of artillery they've been given, even using highly unorthodox (but effective) tactics like using Russian news broadcasts to zero their shots.
The Russians have, to be fair, also made excellent use of artillery, which has historically formed the backbone of their military. This has been largely a conflict of big guns engaged in sniper duels, when they're not laying waste to anything that pops it's head out in the open.
Beware of old men in careers with short life expectancies. Doubly so when the Russians have been killing them off and on for over 10 years.
On the other hand, a draft of all adult males isn't exactly going to result in a lower average age. Still, the premise of the article is garbage.
Ketamine, duh.
How would ketamine help? Sleeping or tripping soldiers aren't really what you want on the field, or what do I miss?
One article says all the Russians are grandpa's The next one says all.l Ukrainians are grandpa's.
Is it a giant giariatric fight there at the front lines or would they both be lying
Although men aged between 18 and 60 are barred from leaving Ukraine under martial law imposed at the start of the war, at least 650,000 men of fighting age have fled to Europe in the past two years, according to European Union data cited by the BBC.
Critical support to the Ukrainian men realizing that their government wants them to be slaughtered like pigs with no real end in sight. Russia will win this war and only the West and the Zelenskyy regime has themselves to blame.
They can't and they never could. NATO used the conflict as a proxy war to weaken their Geopolitical enemy, Russia. Down to the last Ukrainian. The Goverment us now also throwing women into the war.
A Peace Treaty could have been put in place back in 2022, but the UK in behalf of NATO told them to throw it out and fight. Look at them now, the USA is done with them. Funding is over. Hundreds of thousands dead for next to difference, the Ukrainians decimated. Not to mention dead Russians which was the USA's calculus. I mean, they say this openly now. A proxy war meant to weaken Russia.
And before anyone who drank the Kool-Aid thinks I am a Russian supporter, go screw yourselves. I have no care for Putin. The reality is that the USA and NATO promised to not entrench themswvles into Russia's sphere of influence back in ~~1985~~ 1991, and then proceeded to immediately break their word for the next 30 years. Playing behind the scenes manipulating the Ukrainian goverment for the last 20 years. Essentially the same shit that we all call Russia out for doing.
The Cuban missile crisis almost threw us into WW3 because the Russians dared to stretch its field of influence to 90 miles off Florida. But when NATO does the same and more, somehow Russia is meant to not care? Come on. I agree that we are biased but we cannot be so blind of such hypocrisy.
No superpower wants another superpower, either next to their borders or for even near. China funds North Korea just so they do not have South Korean jexto their border and the USA had a fit with Cuba back in the Kennedy days.
It is just the same old Geopolitics, played by the USA, Chiba, Russia et al. But you could not say this 2 years ago, because our propaganda pushed the notion that stating reality somehow made people "Putin puppets." Got to give it to USA propaganda, made people feel so strongly about a country most Americans could not have even been able to find on a map days prior.
Edit: All anyone has to do is be honest with themselves and literally open a history book and will see that Everything I say is true and correct. Facta do not make me a Putin or Biden supporter, just makes me objective. Albeit I may be off with the year 1984. Will update.
- Ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for territory guarantees. Russia reneged on that deal.
- The only reason NATO is involved with Ukraine is because Russia invaded.
- The fact that Russia is on day 718 of their "Three Day Special Military Operation" shows that they are not a superpower.
Also, a peace treaty was offered by Ukraine (one that included giving up large parts of their territory). Russia refused.
This narrative that the West/NATO is "using" Ukraine is utterly detached from reality. Russia chose to make this a total war. From that point on Ukraine's only choices were fight or be destroyed.
-
Agreed. Russia's reason to break the treaty is bull-shit. But we would be outright dishonest or stupid to deny that the USA has not been mingling since 1994 in not only Ukraine's internal politics any less than Russia has. To do so, would be to state that we or you are arguing in bad faith. And I say that honestly stating that I do not like Putin, or Russia's shitty geopolitics and grandstanding any more than I do NATO's or more specifically, the USA's geopolitical games and grand standing. USA's create a power vacuum in Iraq, precipitating the country into a civil war that killed over a million people. Meanwhile calling it merely "sectarian violence." Not something you reported saw a lot on CNN or MSNBC of FOX. There are many other such examples. The problem is that USA propaganda is really good and the average person tends to fall for it. But not so much if you follow primary sources. Which most people do not do. My claim that the average American could not find Ukraine in a map until recently is highly likely to be 100% correct.
-
Wrong. The USA and the UK have been involved since 1994, with an escalation of soft power circa early 2000's. The Ukraine issue, or their otherworldly rampant corruption problems did not materialize into existence, in 2022, or 2014, or 2010. This is not me saying this, this is History books and multiple other media stating this. Only because I am Pro-Western it does not make me blind to reality. This would be a longer topic, if you ask a specific question I can try to look up some info for you.
-
Do not care if Russia is a super power or not, friend, albeit I am not going to pretend that a Nuclear superpower with thousands of nukes should be geopolitically ignored. Whether I like it or not their interests must be taken into account. Real life is not a video game. To do so is to live in fantasy land. However, one would have to be dumb and stupid to not see that Ukraine has been used by NATO, to the last Ukrainian, it seems, in order to weaken Russian's military and purse. Not the first time the USA has done this, the USA funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan along with a young Osama Bin Laden. Literally, the USA will and had funded religious Fundamentalist and terrorists if it means to attack Russia military via proxy war. How did that end up going for us in the long term, friend? Something happened around 2001, or something like that.
Do not fall for the propaganda, Ukraine has received over $133 billion because if the USA got its way it would use them as a military base. If you are willing to throw billions and hundreds of thousands of men into the grinder, it would be unfair to not say that it would not make a dent. We might not care about what Russia wants, but Russia does. Any super power with nukes would. I get that the USA sells this as a Humanitarian mission, but it is not. But selling it to the average person via emotion works so much better than sacrificing people or money for "Geopolitics." This is the most propagandized war in history, and it was done by ALL parties. Stating this or just reality does not make me a Putin supporter, it is just the easy hand-waving by emotional people or people saying so in bad faith.
It was stated in more Academic circles in 2022: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/04/yes-the-united-states-should-weaken-russia/
It is being said now to the normies: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3462190-pentagon-chief-says-us-wants-to-see-russia-weakened/
Anyone who wants to read a still USA-biased but way more intelligent, nuanced take that tries to take reality into consideration over just emotional propaganda for the massed can check this. It is a long read, but there are no shortcuts for knowledge:
"NATO promised to not entrench themswvles into Russia's sphere of influence back in 1985"
No. They didn't. Stop getting your news from Russian propaganda outlets.
As for the "NATO expansion" narrative, this too is Russian propaganda. The interim Ukrainian government that came in after the revolution were firmly against joining NATO. That changed when Putin annexed Crimea.
In fact, Putin's aggression over the last decade has created the biggest expansion of NATO basically since its founding. He's not responding to the growth of the alliance, he's fuelling it.
[removed by mod]
The Cuban missile crisis almost threw us into WW3 because the Russians dared to stretch its field of influence to 90 miles off Florida. But when NATO does the same and more, somehow Russia is meant to not care? Come on. I agree that we are biased but we cannot be so blind of such hypocrisy.
It's worse than that when you learn the US already had nuclear missiles that close to the USSR.
Rules for thee, not for me.
Rules for thee, not for me.
?
During the cold war, the USSR had nukes in East Germany, years before the Cuban missile crisis. IRC less than 10 miles from NATO territory.
Russia has nukes 50 miles from the Polish/NATO border in Kaliningrad. Been like that for years.
I mean, what's next? Blaming NATO for moving Romania closer to Russia after they annexed Crimea?
Talking about the Cuban missile crisis here, which was a direct response to the US putting missiles in Turkey and Italy. Then when the USSR starts putting missiles in Cuba the US throws a absolute fit and threatens nuclear war to fend off so-called Soviet aggression. The US was ready to kill everyone if it meant no competition in the Western hemisphere had nukes. The US doesn't give a shit about Europe lol
Funnily enough, that's all BS. Going "NATO MADE ME DO IT!" is not a defence for a premeditated attack on another country. Countries join NATO because the alternative is being invaded by Russia. This process is done democratically, something completely alien to the dictatorship you're shilling for.
which was a direct response to the US putting missiles in Turkey and Italy.
1961-1963:
1959:
Every retelling of this story I have ever seen or read says that the stationing of nuclear missiles on Cuba was a response to nuclear missiles deployed to Turkey. Presumably this is what mainstream historians believe. Are you disagreeing with this?
The deployment of nuclear missiles to Cuba _was _a response to nuclear missiles being deployed to Italy and Turkey. This was also the prevailing wisdom during the cold war.
But thanks to information which was only released after the cold war, we now know the Soviets had already stationed nuclear weapons in East Germany, and that the US knew that they had deployed weapons to East Germany. In 1956 Kruschev had also made the infamous (but arguably misinterpreted) We Will Bury You speech. This was seen in the West as an explicit nuclear threat. The article above:
"He threatened in 1956, at the time of the Suez Crisis, to use nuclear weapons, and he very much regarded his threat as successful, so he saw nuclear blackmail as a valuable policy initiative and he needed, therefore, the nuclear missiles to back that up," he says.
The article mentions that due to increased tensions (the aftermath of Suez is less talked about because it was eclipsed by Cuba), Kruschev withdrew these nukes in 1958, but crucially the CIA did not know that till 1961.
Ie. Cuba was a response to American missiles in Turkey/Italy. But Turkey/Italy was a response to previous Soviet threats and deployments. The Soviets deployed missiles in East Germany because Kruschev (arguably correctly) had come to the conclusion his threats at the time of Suez had worked.
A reminder on Suez/1956:
Not so much the US saying 'rules for thee, but not for me', given their response to 1956 and Soviet nukes in East Germany had been tit for tat. More 'here's the red line' at a time when the US/NATO were on the backfoot, as evidenced by the invasion of Hungary, likely precipitated in part by the Soviets being emboldened after Suez. Another side effect of Suez was the French nuclear weapons programme. They were one of the big losers after Suez. The US nukes that ended up being stationed in Italy/Turkey had orginally been planned to be deployed in France, but France felt it needed its own deterrent after Suez.
Of course, Suez was in turn (partly) caused by the whole Israel switching sides thing. The Soviets ended up supporting the Arab world. Israel became a US ally, where previously they'd had close ties with the Soviet bloc. Czechoslowakian weapons had been used to fight for their independence. There was also obviously the whole Six Day War thing, where the Soviets had supplied to the countries attacking Israel. Luckily that region of the world is no longer part of a cold war between the US, Russia and their respective allies.
TLDR: Not 'rules for thee, but not for me'. More like total chaos, brutal real politik, threats, and red lines as the cold war slowly reached boiling point.
The mere fact that you have been mostly down voted educates me that people reading your points do not care for objectivity. Hence the reason I think that I am likely to be voted the same. Despite the fact you are objectively correct.
Russophobia is real and it's an all pervasive mind virus on this site. Russia bad, so everything Russia does is bad no matter what.