Russian Invasion of Ukraine

  • Thread starter Rage Racer
  • 10,148 comments
  • 614,131 views

perfect-strangers-bronson-pinchot-mark-linn-baker-today-170421-tease-1.jpg
 
I'm no fan of the man but today the King of the Netherlands was spitting fire at the expense of Pooptin.

Dumpert.nl

Translation:
(first second unintelligible)

What I do think is great is just constructive criticism, in other words : if you don't have that you'll end up like Putin, and nobody wants that.
 
Trace your family tree back to the 1200s and you have more direct ancestors than there have ever been people. It's an almost facile statistic.
 

Russia warns Britain for provoking Ukraine


Putin's cabal dont like it up em!

Or, reading the tone of some links posted by @Dotini ...

We're doomed!


The Sky Is Falling Reaction GIF

Ukrainian officials about burning fuel tanks and ammunition depots - "its karma".
Instant Karma's gonna always get you...


Another twist on this:
View attachment 1143513
So Putin is not only a Hun, but he is your Nth cousin...:scared:
Illustration Simpsons GIF by Juta Studio
 
Last edited:


Assuming Ukraine can't take it back.



Murica. Get some!



Apparently Ukraine has also requested armed Reaper drones from the US. I don't think losing Reapers to AA has been a very big problem in our past usage but is probably a concern this time around. Losing Reapers in Russian territory would not be ideal, especially if any tech is salvageable.
 
Last edited:
Well, everyone who can trace their roots back to Europe in the past couple of hundred years is a descendant of the Huns. In fact, if you go back some 50 generations or so (around 1000 to 1500 years) then your ancestors are pretty much everyone in Europe who were alive at the time*. So the question isn't so much about whether you have an ancestor who was a Hun, but rather how many Hunnic ancestors you have. Most Europeans can probably count them in terms of hundreds of thousands, if not in millions.

No seriously, think about it. For each generation you go back, your number of ancestors double. After 50 generations you have 2^50 ancestors. Of course, almost everyone are duplicates, and by that I mean almost everyone.

No seriously, think about it. The total number of humans that have ever existed on our planet is estimated to be around 117 billion, or 2^37, so that's the absolute maximum number of unique ancestors you can have. Now, 2^50-2^37 ≈ 2^50, which means that approximately everyone in your family tree over the past 50 generations is a duplicate. If you thought Gran Turismo was bad...

Anyway, the probability of not finding a Hun somewhere in Putin's family tree is vanishingly small.

(*Your mileage may vary, depending on how isolated your ancestors were from the rest of the world.)
 
Well, everyone who can trace their roots back to Europe in the past couple of hundred years is a descendant of the Huns. In fact, if you go back some 50 generations or so (around 1000 to 1500 years) then your ancestors are pretty much everyone in Europe who were alive at the time*. So the question isn't so much about whether you have an ancestor who was a Hun, but rather how many Hunnic ancestors you have. Most Europeans can probably count them in terms of hundreds of thousands, if not in millions.

No seriously, think about it. For each generation you go back, your number of ancestors double. After 50 generations you have 2^50 ancestors. Of course, almost everyone are duplicates, and by that I mean almost everyone.

No seriously, think about it. The total number of humans that have ever existed on our planet is estimated to be around 117 billion, or 2^37, so that's the absolute maximum number of unique ancestors you can have. Now, 2^50-2^37 ≈ 2^50, which means that approximately everyone in your family tree over the past 50 generations is a duplicate. If you thought Gran Turismo was bad...

Anyway, the probability of not finding a Hun somewhere in Putin's family tree is vanishingly small.

(*Your mileage may vary, depending on how isolated your ancestors were from the rest of the world.)
That's an interesting theory. I'm just wondering why the OP wanted to highlight Putin's supposed Hunnic descent. There are plenty of Ukrainians who could probably also trace their origin to the Huns so why particularly bring up Putin's ancestry? To explain his war-like nature, perhaps?



Assuming Ukraine can't take it back.



Murica. Get some!



Apparently Ukraine has also requested armed Reaper drones from the US. I don't think losing Reapers to AA has been a very big problem in our past usage but is probably a concern this time around. Losing Reapers in Russian territory would not be ideal, especially if any tech is salvageable.

It seems as if the word 'genocide' is tossed around regularly nowadays. War crimes do not necessarily constitute genocide. If you have Russian authorities suppressing.all things Ukrainian e.g. language, culture, currency, flag etc, would that be genocide? Likewise, if you had pro-Russian civilians in the Donbass being targeted by Ukrainian nationalists in the same way, would that be genocide?
 


ojfru04hkb771.jpg


@Dotini what are the chances that US submarines could navigate the Turkish straights without being detected...twice?
 
Last edited:


ojfru04hkb771.jpg


@Dotini what are the chances that US submarines could navigate the Turkish straights without being detected...twice?

Four Republicans, four Democrats vote ‘no’ on bill urging Biden to confiscate assets from sanctioned oligarchs

Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) voted against the bill.

I'm certain Tulsi would have been against it too, if she were still in office. A weird bunch to agree on something. Curious to know the reasoning behind the no votes. Not sure how I feel about it, to be honest. Seems like a slimy, yet undoubtedly satisfying move.
 
Last edited:
Four Republicans, four Democrats vote ‘no’ on bill urging Biden to confiscate assets from sanctioned oligarchs



I'm certain Tulsi would have been against it too, if she were still in office. A weird bunch to agree on something. Curious to know the reasoning behind the no votes. Not sure how I feel about it, to be honest. Seems like a slimy, yet undoubtedly satisfying move.
Squad must feel this isn't enough or it's irrelevant to them. Cawthorn and Massie might be compromised due to conflict of interest. MTG probably assumed if it gives Biden a chance to do something, it's bad and it should always be voted against so she didn't bother reading past "authorizing the President". No idea about Roy.
 
Four Republicans, four Democrats vote ‘no’ on bill urging Biden to confiscate assets from sanctioned oligarchs



I'm certain Tulsi would have been against it too, if she were still in office. A weird bunch to agree on something. Curious to know the reasoning behind the no votes. Not sure how I feel about it, to be honest. Seems like a slimy, yet undoubtedly satisfying move.
Very interesting. The most progressive and the most conservative all voted against it? Very strange. I agree with @Blitz24 that the squad may have voted on "principle" like Ron Paul and libertarians always used to do. Pretty sure Bernie does that as well, voting against things because they're "not enough". They also probably knew they could vote on principle because it would pass by a landslide, yet another thing libertarians relied on.
 
Very interesting. The most progressive and the most conservative all voted against it? Very strange. I agree with @Blitz24 that the squad may have voted on "principle" like Ron Paul and libertarians always used to do. Pretty sure Bernie does that as well, voting against things because they're "not enough". They also probably knew they could vote on principle because it would pass by a landslide, yet another thing libertarians relied on.
Here in Brazil we have a similar phenomenon: extreme left and extreme right types support the invasion. The left sees Russia as a USSR continuation for some reason (really) and they bought the denazification propaganda. The right sees Putin as a fighter against the globalism yadda-yadda-yadda, plus as an ally to our very own fascist in chief.

We are doomed.
 
Here in Brazil we have a similar phenomenon: extreme left and extreme right types support the invasion. The left sees Russia as a USSR continuation for some reason (really) and they bought the denazification propaganda. The right sees Putin as a fighter against the globalism yadda-yadda-yadda, plus as an ally to our very own fascist in chief.

We are doomed.
 
The petulance is truly next-level. So, I'm gonna throw rocks at whoever I want but then get pi$$ed when they learn how to throw them back at me??? Yeah, uhhhhh.....no, that's not how this works at all. I guess what floors me the most is that it's just thrown out there like it's a perfectly normal, acceptable, response to the challenge at hand.

Also surprised that they'd air their apparent weakness so brazenly. If you want to make people sweat and take your retaliatory threats seriously, you might want to towel-off before you approach the mic. :cheers:
 


A good Christian would do the right thing and send the ship anyway. A good believer in God's will and follower of Christ knows that good things must be done and permission is not required to be good, especially in the face of evil. Send the ship. If the ship isn't accepted and respected then we know we're dealing with a godless heathen and the best way to deal with heathens is definitely another crusade. Putin can't be mad at American if the holy war is fought by the church lol.



Do we think we can trust them? Will they be appreciative and loyal or will they be spies?



As we all know, it's possible to accurately predict Russian plans based on what Russia says others will do or are doing already. Why they maintain this formula I'm not sure, it's like they have no idea that the entire world has deciphered it. They say Ukraine will invade Transnistria which is ridiculous - Ukraine is obviously fighting for its survival with all the resources it has, and Transnistria is part of yet another sovereign nation, Moldova, which currently has very good relations with Ukraine.

Now, after Ukraine triumphs and can once again engage in diplomacy with friendly nations, I would expect Ukraine to work closely with Moldova to solve the Transnistria problem decisively.

After some more hunting. Commenter's pretext is quoted:

The number of nations advising their citizens to leave Transnistria grows. Transnistria is a breakaway pro-Russian region which borders Ukraine and is internationally recognized as a part of Moldova. Russia has about 1500 troops there, mostly to guard an old Soviet arms depot which supposedly contains enough old conventional ammunition to rival a nuclear bomb.



Looks like the Ruskies have a depot there and soldiers protecting it. Ukraine and Moldova should work to isolate the area and prevent Russian access to it. Shelve it until after the war is resolved, then resolve this matter decisively.

We already discussed the House passage of the newest Ukrainian support bill but I didn't realize they called it Lend-Lease :lol: Just to piss off Putin and remind him that Russia isn't squat without American economic support and hasn't been for at least 80 years.

 
Last edited:
It just shows you how infantile reckless and how stupid these idiots are,who on earth apart these imbociles would even discuss this publicly or even think it’s something to brag about.I can’t believe their attitudes.
 
Don't worry about the nuclear propaganda/mind games, other things must come first. First a summer-long ground war for territory, then a diplomatic settlement.

 
Back