Russian Invasion of Ukraine

  • Thread starter Rage Racer
  • 9,975 comments
  • 557,588 views
a9qqn1D_460s.jpg


If the internet is correct, we've reached this point in the war. Just try to overwhelm the Ukrainians with massive amount of cannon fodder. Those Western weapons need to get there faster, and in bigger numbers.
I doubt this is true. There is no single source on this except a Paint image.
Besides, Russia also withdrew from Afghanistan when getting their ass whooped.
 
that the father he never knew died after abandoning his stance as a pacifist.
His father died fighting against fascism, and the son's only takeaway from it is that it's better to let them have what they want? Better to have millions die in subjugation since it's technically peacetime than to take up arms and dismantle such a regime?
 
I doubt this is true. There is no single source on this except a Paint image.
Besides, Russia also withdrew from Afghanistan when getting their ass whooped.
Defending the motherland with meat grinder tactics is one thing (see Stalingrad) but a dubiously popular offensive war for territory? You can't tell me the Russian soldiers have their heart in this - particularly the conscripts.
 
His father died fighting against fascism, and the son's only takeaway from it is that it's better to let them have what they want?

No, clearly not. A recurring theme in most of what he's done since 1979 is the human cost of war and how it's ridiculously undervalued by those that choose to wage it, on both sides. Not just the raw cost in lives but also how the wasting of lives propagates the ruination of many more, and how that leads to war. I'd suggest those were bigger take aways...

Better to have millions die in subjugation since it's technically peacetime than to take up arms and dismantle such a regime?

... and also they seem to be something you've missed out here. Do you view all wars as though there's no price that shouldn't be paid to get the win?
 
Fair enough if you disagree with his stance, but none of that makes sense. For starters, holding a belief or ideology doesn't mean you support every outcome of holding those beliefs or ideals - in much the same way that supporting free speech doesn't mean you support hate speech.

As for Waters' views and how 'leftist' they are or aren't, his message and motivations currently seem the same as they have been for decades, and I'd suggest that a lot of those more greatly reflect left leaning views than right. There are of course instances where taking a more pacifistic approach to aggression is at odds with the notion of protecting the downtrodden - that's inevitable, in Waters' case it seems to me that leaning towards a more neutral position (which as Scaff points out above, unfortunately favours the aggressor in this instance) is the result of Waters disdain for Western military arrogance and foreign policy, and potentially also in part because in the back of Waters' mind (or the forefront of it - depending on which album you're listening to), is that the father he never knew died after abandoning his stance as a pacifist.

Whether you think he's right or wrong in his stance likely reflects where you stand on 'better dead than red' or 'better red than dead'. In crude terms, I'd say Waters very literally favours the latter, and that would firmly put him on the left in my opinion.

Also... "incel"... ? This is just getting on for "Everyone I don't like is Hitler" meme level debate.
What I said wasn't really supposed to be taken that seriously, I like distancing myself from people like Roger Waters because of how much of an unlikeable human being he has become.

And "incel" was meant to refer to the fact that he is often outwardly misogynistic, which again for me is both antithetical to my beliefs and quite revolting.

I didn't literally mean he isn't "left" politically, I just like to think I have nothing in common with this man and enjoy writing snide comments on the internet about it. I mean, define "left politically". Its kind of all relative anyway. Lots of people still try to define modern day russia or china as "left" to compare them to western leftists but they are so far from the western "left" that the comparison just doesn't make any sense. But I digress.

Anyway, I didn't mean anything serious by it. It was just supposed to be a throwaway comment to inform Incloud that Roger Waters has very little to do with modern western leftist values.
 
No, clearly not. A recurring theme in most of what he's done since 1979 is the human cost of war and how it's ridiculously undervalued by those that choose to wage it, on both sides. Not just the raw cost in lives but also how the wasting of lives propagates the ruination of many more, and how that leads to war. I'd suggest those were bigger take aways...



... and also they seem to be something you've missed out here. Do you view all wars as though there's no price that shouldn't be paid to get the win?
Your arguments are coming across pretty suspicious here, as if winning WWII for the Allies at any cost wasn't absolutely essential for the survival of our civilization. Like the well documented world conquest mentality of Nazi Germany never existed. Even if we discounted the Holocaust (due to not necessarily being widely known about yet mid-war), that alone was a good enough reason why Nazis needed to die en masse for as long as it took to get the fight out of them. The same is true for Russians right now, unless you'd like to embolden them to go after more European countries next and cause even more death and destruction than if this behavior was beaten out of them right away in Ukraine. It may sound cruel, but every other method has outright been proven to not work - the gas deals always existed as a means to blackmail Western Europe into staying out of the war through a predatory energy dependency, and no pacifist approach ever got Kherson or the Kharkiv oblast liberated. Even with sanctions piling up, the bitches keep mobilizing more and more orcs to fight and die for nothing. Literally no sense will ever be beaten into that psychotic orc society except by killing them off until there's no choice left but to back down.
 
Photos of those airplanes:

"On Monday, German Air Force pilots stationed at Ämari Air Base spotted Russian warplanes flying over the Baltic Sea close to Estonian airspace. The planes were flying without a flight plan and a transponder turned on.

German pilots flew Eurofighter Typhoons from Ämari Air Base to analyze the actions of aircraft flying over the Baltic Sea.
It turned out that two Su-27 fighters and an Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft flew near Estonian airspace. The Luftwaffe pilots photographed the planes."

1676409400101.png

1676409411737.png

1676409422528.png
 
Defending the motherland with meat grinder tactics is one thing (see Stalingrad) but a dubiously popular offensive war for territory? You can't tell me the Russian soldiers have their heart in this - particularly the conscripts.
Different times I guess. Russian young men seem more willing to break their own leg instead of going to their graves in Donbas. That's why they need so many Wagner mercenaries. I think propaganda still takes it's toll but it's easier to get information from outside, which is bad for morale.
 
Literally no sense will ever be beaten into that psychotic orc society except by killing them off until there's no choice left but to back down.
A lot of talk about "Russian propaganda" in discourse regarding the Ukrainian conflict, especially if anyone questions western actions or empathises with poor Russians. Yet psychotic and dehumanising takes like this often go unchecked. US propaganda is incredible.
 
A lot of talk about "Russian propaganda" in discourse regarding the Ukrainian conflict, especially if anyone questions western actions or empathises with poor Russians. Yet psychotic and dehumanising takes like this often go unchecked. US propaganda is incredible.
Of course, dear. They would never dehumanize themselves with the orc warfare they've practiced for a whole year now, it's all just Western propaganda that's out to make them look bad.

Imagine if the now 130k dead had basic humanity to them - that they'd have systematically turned their guns at their officers in disgust the moment the widespread civilian massacring was to be initiated. Maybe that's who Roger Waters and fellow peace doves should try prosetylizing to, the current and future mobiks. It certainly would make more of a difference.

Do feel free to disprove those war crimes anytime you'd like, unless that's a topic you'd rather carefully skirt past like last time, in favor of the uninformed and uncomfortably biased "muh both sides" drivel that you'd rather spout.

Or did you get the impression that I was talking about civilians as a whole and not the filth that is the Russian army? Might explain away the visceral reaction, though the fact remains that your talking points have exclusively favored the aggressor.
 
Last edited:
What I said wasn't really supposed to be taken that seriously, I like distancing myself from people like Roger Waters because of how much of an unlikeable human being he has become.

And "incel" was meant to refer to the fact that he is often outwardly misogynistic, which again for me is both antithetical to my beliefs and quite revolting.

I didn't literally mean he isn't "left" politically, I just like to think I have nothing in common with this man and enjoy writing snide comments on the internet about it. I mean, define "left politically". Its kind of all relative anyway. Lots of people still try to define modern day russia or china as "left" to compare them to western leftists but they are so far from the western "left" that the comparison just doesn't make any sense. But I digress.

Anyway, I didn't mean anything serious by it. It was just supposed to be a throwaway comment to inform Incloud that Roger Waters has very little to do with modern western leftist values.

I still don't necessarily agree, but fair enough. I don't always agree with Water's standpoint either, and in the past have been diametrically opposed to his views, and have still been a fan of his music. What I'm pushing back against is a misunderstanding of his motivation. Watching the The Wall, listening to the albums Radio KAOS, Amused to Death, and Is this the life we really want, as well as The Final Cut from time to time, has been enjoyable and informative for me whether I was in my pro-military phase, or my more philosophical phase.

Your arguments are coming across pretty suspicious here
Lol, I have no problem accepting that someone with your views thinks my views are suspicious.

as if winning WWII for the Allies at any cost wasn't absolutely essential for the survival of our civilization.

As if Roger Waters addressing the UN to call for a ceasefire affects events that played out 80 years ago.

Even if we discounted the Holocaust (due to not necessarily being widely known about yet mid-war), that alone was a good enough reason why Nazis needed to die en masse for as long as it took to get the fight out of them. The same is true for Russians right now, unless you'd like to embolden them to go after more European countries next and cause even more death and destruction than if this behavior was beaten out of them right away in Ukraine. It may sound cruel, but every other method has outright been proven to not work - the gas deals always existed as a means to blackmail Western Europe into staying out of the war through a predatory energy dependency, and no pacifist approach ever got Kherson or the Kharkiv oblast liberated. Even with sanctions piling up, the bitches keep mobilizing more and more orcs to fight and die for nothing. Literally no sense will ever be beaten into that psychotic orc society except by killing them off until there's no choice left but to back down.

Kill people until there's peace. Interesting. That's bound to work.
 
Lol, I have no problem accepting that someone with your views thinks my views are suspicious.



As if Roger Waters addressing the UN to call for a ceasefire affects events that played out 80 years ago.



Kill people until there's peace. Interesting. That's bound to work.
You yourself asked if there are wars where winning at any cost is necessary. WWII was one, the Ukraine invasion is another.

You're also welcome to point out how the orc army has so far been deterred by peace doves, or literally any other means than supplying Ukraine with weapons and ammunition.
 
You yourself asked if there are wars where winning at any cost is necessary. WWII was one, the Ukraine invasion is another.
So you believe Ukraine is a war that has to be won at any cost, then why aren't you at the front line? "Any cost" includes you dying on Ukrainian soil for Ukrainian sovereignty. What excuse do you have for not doing that, despite saying that this war must be won at ANY cost?

Playing the game with the bravery of being out of range.

You're also welcome to point out how the orc army has so far been deterred by peace doves, or literally any other means than supplying Ukraine with weapons and ammunition.

You're welcome to point out where I suggested pacifism deterred aggressors. You appear to think peace is achieved with more killing, at very least this should have you questioning your standpoint even if it doesn't change your ultimate view... and don't get me wrong, MAD - and the equilibrium that followed, which worked because people believed "civilization" was better dead than different, has its place, just not a place that exists once one side becomes rational...
 
So you believe Ukraine is a war that has to be won at any cost, then why aren't you at the front line? "Any cost" includes you dying on Ukrainian soil for Ukrainian sovereignty. What excuse do you have for not doing that, despite saying that this war must be won at ANY cost?

Playing the game with the bravery of being out of range.
Smells like gatekeeping. Only active participants in the war are now allowed to hope for total victory?

You're one to talk being out of range - some really drastic change for the worse would have to happen in Europe for the UK to ever be at risk of an invasion anymore.
You're welcome to point out where I suggested pacifism deterred aggressors. You appear to think peace is achieved with more killing, at very least this should have you questioning your standpoint even if it doesn't change your ultimate view... and don't get me wrong, MAD - and the equilibrium that followed, which worked because people believed "civilization" was better dead than different, has its place, just not a place that exists once one side becomes rational...
Good peace, yes. All thanks to the orcs and their refusal to back down to their own (uncontested) side of the border despite now being reduced to pathetic human wave tactics. My issue is with the likes of Waters advocating for literally any peace, including a supremely bad one where Ukraine is allowed to fall into the hands of an abusive ex-boyfriend despite its blatant desire to ally with the West, and the indiscriminate subjugation of Ukrainian civilians is enabled to continue unpunished.
 
Last edited:
Demonization of ordinary Russian citizens wouldn't help. It would separate us from Europe and democratic values even more. Civilized world should give Russians platform for antiwar statements. I can't imagine more suitable platform for this than Olimpics.
Ah yes, the country banned for playing outside the rules with basically an institutionalized doping program will somehow use the Olimpics to show to the whole world just how nice they are.
 
I still don't necessarily agree, but fair enough. I don't always agree with Water's standpoint either, and in the past have been diametrically opposed to his views, and have still been a fan of his music. What I'm pushing back against is a misunderstanding of his motivation. Watching the The Wall, listening to the albums Radio KAOS, Amused to Death, and Is this the life we really want, as well as The Final Cut from time to time, has been enjoyable and informative for me whether I was in my pro-military phase, or my more philosophical phase.
I absolutely agree, he has undeniably made some fantastic music and the social commentary of which I largely agree with (again, except for the weird woman hating which I really just cant forgive) But for me, in recent years, he's just seemed like a bitter old man, which disappointed me a lot.
 
dehumanising takes like this
Ork is a great metaphor. Its not like West dehumanising them, its unholy war and evil propaganda. After war everyone should be threatened as human being - resocializated.
country banned
Reread whole discussion, please. Russian citizens and Russian federation are different things. Even Russians and Russian citizens are different things. Russian Federation should be banned. Russian citizens should be able to be part of civilized world, but after they made antiwar statements.
 
Many are trying by whatever means possible.

Giving birth in Argentina, then as the mother of an Argentinian son, acquire Argentinian citizenship.
Argentina is one of the main emigration points for Russians right now. Argentinian citizenship is waaaay better than Russian in terms of free travel, in current situation its understandable. Everyone wants best for his children.
They probably need a new place to stay after they made that sort of statement though.
Sure.
 
Smells like gatekeeping. Only active participants in the war are now allowed to hope for total victory?
No. For - not the first time - you've sat behind your safe keyboard and said what you believe other people should be prepared to die for. You've again highlighted a goal, without attaching any cost to it.. do you believe that total victory comes at no cost.. and do you believe that because it's not your life on the line? How many lives would you trade, in a different country, for peace in that country?

My issue is with the likes of Waters advocating for literally any peace, including a supremely bad one where Ukraine is allowed to fall into the hands of an abusive ex-boyfriend despite its blatant desire to ally with the West, and the indiscriminate subjugation of Ukrainian civilians is enabled to continue unpunished.
At some point you have to acknowledge that price of peace is higher than the price of defeat. Where you find that limit is perhaps different to Waters.

I'm ****ing livid at Russia for their attack, as my early posts in this thread will attest to, but I also recognise that the supposed subjugation might be better than being dead. It absolutley sucks balls, but if your goal is to save lives, do you fight to the death or do you accept a different way of life.

You're one to talk being out of range - some really drastic change for the worse would have to happen in Europe for the UK to ever be at risk of an invasion anymore.

"The bravery of being out of range" is a Roger Waters song that deals with how easily life is scrubbed out by people whose own life isn't on the line. Since your have a strong opinion on what he says, I assumed you would know that.
 
No. For - not the first time - you've sat behind your safe keyboard and said what you believe other people should be prepared to die for. You've again highlighted a goal, without attaching any cost to it.. do you believe that total victory comes at no cost.. and do you believe that because it's not your life on the line? How many lives would you trade, in a different country, for peace in that country?
Then it's a good thing modern NATO warfare doesn't rely on large numbers of forcefully conscripted soldiers, keeping the casualties to a relative minimum if **** were to hit the fan. In Ukraine though, without that direct intervention even if, say, 300k died while killing a million Russians to save 40 million Ukrainians from subjugation, that's still a massive improvement over a total surrender. (It also helps that Ukrainians themselves have no interest in a bad peace, either.) All because...
At some point you have to acknowledge that price of peace is higher than the price of defeat. Where you find that limit is perhaps different to Waters.

I'm ****ing livid at Russia for their attack, as my early posts in this thread will attest to, but I also recognise that the supposed subjugation might be better than being dead. It absolutley sucks balls, but if your goal is to save lives, do you fight to the death or do you accept a different way of life.
...all life really is not worth living, especially like this. "Different way of life" sounds quite uncomfortably like Russian propaganda, while the reality throughout the Donbas region has been indiscriminate and inhuman violence for no apparent reason other than a twisted power fantasy. They say occupied Mariupol already has had about 100k civilian casualties, so it's not like any lives have been saved whatsoever by giving that city up.

And if the orcs are left feeling empowered and validated from this experience - rewarded even, if borders are allowed to be redrawn and natural resources stolen - it's only a matter of time until another conquest attempt. That's exactly why I've continued to advocate beating the outdated superpower mentality from them.
"The bravery of being out of range" is a Roger Waters song that deals with how easily life is scrubbed out by people whose own life isn't on the line. Since your have a strong opinion on what he says, I assumed you would know that.
Not a listener, no.
 
Total surrender could save thousands of lives for both sides. But it also would drastically reduce quality of live for years for 200.000.000 people(Belarus, RF, Ukraine). We are donating million of lives for freedom and prosperity of our children. Cases of earthquakes in Turkey, Chernobyl and Covid telling us that autocracy could be more devastating than war.

Also there were chances of RF expansion in Baltic, Georgia and Kazakhstan. 300.000 Ukrainian soliders merged into RF army is scary.
 
I'm ****ing livid at Russia for their attack, as my early posts in this thread will attest to, but I also recognise that the supposed subjugation might be better than being dead. It absolutley sucks balls, but if your goal is to save lives, do you fight to the death or do you accept a different way of life.
Supposed?
 
I'm ****ing livid at Russia for their attack, as my early posts in this thread will attest to, but I also recognise that the supposed subjugation might be better than being dead. It absolutley sucks balls, but if your goal is to save lives, do you fight to the death or do you accept a different way of life.
Therein lies the rub - the goal is not merely to save lives, but to preserve freedom and quality of life.

Where do you draw the line when expecting millions of people to "accept a different way of life", esp. when those who are literally forcing that "different way of life" on you think nothing of indiscriminate murder, rape (including children), torture and are completely corrupt to their cores? That's not "a different way of life", that's slavery - and advocating for it is appeasement.

MatskiMonk
The bravery of being out of range" is a Roger Waters song that deals with how easily life is scrubbed out by people whose own life isn't on the line. Since your have a strong opinion on what he says, I assumed you would know that.
Similarly, advocating for appeasement from the comfort of one's Swiss chalet or mansion in the Hamptons is all too easy - but again, where does one draw the line in determining what other populaces ought to "accept" as their way of life?
 
Last edited:
Back