What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

- China is a threat.
- Russia is a threat.
- Iran is a threat.
- Venezuela is a threat.
- Pakistan with its Islamic nukes is a threat.
- North Korea is a threat.
- Belarus is a threat.
- Mexico is a threat.
- Muslims/Islam is a threat.
- Refugees entering the Western nations from various parts of the world is an act of war. The white race is about to go extinct.

Did I miss anything? Jeez, this sounds like the Breivik manifesto...
You forget global warming. That’s a bigger threat. threats everywhere, it’s just the level of threats. But think about it, why Russia is a threat to Europe but not to Mexico? Iran mullahs are certainly a threat, but only to Israel but not to let’s say Korea. There is a theorem called “prisoners of geography”. Nations make decisions based almost on borders, proximity, mountains, rivers. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine follows that patterns.


1694890839331.png
 
. .
Let me tell you something. Not even the inhabitants of many European countries agree with the EU. You know why Brexit succeeded? Because the people were fed up. The same sentiment can be found in countless other EU member states. I am pretty sure that the Hungarian sentiment is shared among many Europeans.



LOL As if that made any difference. You guys have been screaming and shouting that a Ukrainian offensive would dent Russian advance as well as recapture lost land. What happened to that claim? Today the offensive hasn't yielded any significant results. All we are seeing is a tit for tat which was expected anyway.


A majority of Britons would vote to Rejoin the EU according to polls

The real questing on is, would the EU even let the Brits back? From what I'm seeing the UK just tends to bring a lot of drama in the EU and ever since they left things are going more efficient without them. It like breaking up with a toxic Ex, would you really want to take them back?
 
.
Aka western sources lol

Afghan war killed 200k people and wounded normally 5x that number

According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, the conflict killed 212,191 people.[2] The Cost of War project estimated in 2015 that the number who have died through indirect causes related to the war may be as high as 360,000 additional people based on a ratio of indirect to direct deaths in contemporary conflicts.[3]

Uppsala is a swedish source.
Cost of war is an american institute.
My UN and WHO sources are less “western” then yours.
But all you do is handpick the western sources you like to use and handwave all others. Biased.



But lets not stop there. It is not as if my other sources disagree with the 200k number.
Only that 200.000 over 20 years in a population of 30-40 millions is not that massive. And with most of the deaths caused by the taliban:

“According to The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the majority of civilian casualties were attributed to the Taliban and other anti-government elements each year, with the figure ranging from 61% to 80% depending on the year.”

We are talking about 3000-5000 a year?

And its not that afghan society was the pillar of peace before Nato.
It came out of the soviet invasion (2 million dead in 15 years) and afghan civil war (400.000 dead in 10 years).
Deaths due to conflict actually went down during Nato control….


Just the improvement in infant mortality meant that 30.000 more babies survived every year:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/806605/infant-mortality-in-afghanistan/

Maternal deathrate with births dropped 60% due to billions into healthcare as well.
Thats 15.000 mothers surviving every year.

80.000 more kids under 5 survived yearly thanks to billions in selective aid.

You do the math….
but somehow we need to believe your Western sources that American improved things lol. Damn man...hypocrites are the worst of all people and scum of the earth. They sell their mothers for $5 and say they are doing a good thing

Nato spent over 100 billion on development aid in afghanistan. Aside from also opening up the country for billions of UN and charity aid as well.


Large increase in education rates as well.

Or here a middle eastern news outlet:

just simple facts. I can post hundreds of these…..
so open your biased eyes.

A lot of mistakes were made in afghanistan but it was not “all bad”.
Development and country-building was a major public drive to even stay for so long in the bottomless pit that is afghanistan.
 
.
NATO is not a threat to Russia? How would you perceive it if the other block came to steal your influence and establish military bases right next to you?
We would perceive based on track record of invasion in Europe over the last 60 years that is solely the domain of the Kremlin (with our without the USSR):

40s in Finland, 56 Hungary, 68 Czech, and now…. So there is only one aggressor inside Europe. That does not mean that Europeans are angels, but the rest of the alliance invades and attacks further from its backyard.

Really? Or again simply blind on both eyes? I would indeed rate the destruction of two Tu-22M bombers, 4 Il-76 transports a landing ship and a Kilo-submarine as well as the un-defeatable S400 battery +++ indeed a small victory!

And since we are on it, when was Russia making a "victory" the last time? :smitten: :omghaha:
Don’t forget to add:
1. Two countries added to NATO. Land border doubled. , and reserve army doubled in size (thank you Finland)
2. Russia’s only friend is North Korea: another degenerate country
3. Baltic Sea turned into a lake.

I don’t know where the Russian fans are getting the facts but the score card looks pretty miserable for Putin in terms of losing world standing/prestige. China supports but Russia knows China is mortal enemy as big as the US so has to tread carefully
 
.
You guys claimed that Russia would be annihilated within a matter of months. What happened to that claim? Don't we deserve some answers?

Recently your lackey India showed you a middle finger during the G20 moot. India refrained from condemning Russia. Your leaders stood there red faced. Any explanation?
Nobody claimed it. You are under some hallucination now that you have come out of hole after 2 months of doing something else. In the meantime news for you: you and your buddy Putin went from ‘special operation where Ukraine will be taken over’ to ‘Ukraine is not as powerful because Russia is not losing the land it gained last year fast enough’. The fact the Russians are losing land and assets and capital being attacked and ships destroyed is enough for us Ukraine supporters. We as taxpyers are in it for the long haul
 
. . .
I'm left wondering why Hungary joined the
EU in the first place if it doesn't agree with
EU rules. They need to leave, so they can run the country to the ground proudly without interference just like the UK government has.

Always one in a bunch.

Hungary joined the EU for the many benefits joining brings such as labour market access, free trade etc....

However, what it didn't envisage was that the EU will be forced to help and come to the aid of Europe's most corrupt state to it's own detriment. It certainly didn't envisage that the organisation was going to become self destructive at any costs to support a clown sitting in Kiev. Nobody signed up to joining the EU only to be forced to listen to the commands of the senile grandpa in Washington. It's obvious that part of the plan of this conflict was to bring down the EU, and whether we like it or not, it's happening Infront of our eyes. A real shame.
Also @Dalit makes some good points in his response.
 
Last edited:
.
We would perceive based on track record of invasion in Europe over the last 60 years that is solely the domain of the Kremlin (with our without the USSR):

40s in Finland, 56 Hungary, 68 Czech, and now…. So there is only one aggressor inside Europe. That does not mean that Europeans are angels, but the rest of the alliance invades and attacks further from its backyard.
That was the Soviet Union. We take the last 60 years,in how many countries have the U.S. intervened? How many invaded?
 
. .
Hungary joined the EU for the many benefits joining brings such as labour market access, free trade etc....

However, what it didn't envisage was that the EU will be forced to help and come to the aid of Europe's most corrupt state to it's own detriment. It certainly didn't envisage that the organisation was going to become self destructive at any costs to support a clown sitting in Kiev. Nobody signed up to joining the EU only to be forced to listen to the commands of the senile grandpa in Washington. It's obvious that part of the plan of this conflict was to bring down the EU, and whether we like it or not, it's happening Infront of our eyes. A real shame.
Also @Dalit makes some good points in his response.


Perfect case of wanting their cake and eat it.
When a country joins the EU, they have to adhere to EU main principles, such as human rights. The use of funds for any EU agreed project is in accordance with the stated project objectives in the MOU and they can't be used in other directions . Hungary not only violates general EU principles such as respect for Human rights but also the projects' stated goals by using underhanded strategies and subterfuge. They have been at it for years. We are glad that finally EU has taken a firm stance on Hungary.
 
.
That was the Soviet Union. We take the last 60 years,in how many countries have the U.S. intervened? How many invaded?
There is a big difference between Russias Wars of Aggression to repress the population/annexing territory and interventions based on UNSC resolutions (Libya, Syria, Iraq), Wars of Self-Defense (Afghanistan) and terminating a ceasefire after multiple violations (Iraq).
 
. .

The Fall | Ukrainian Elite Units Suffered CRITICAL Losses. Military Summary And Analysis 2023.09.16

 
.
Back
Top Bottom