Societal survival of the fittest

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#36
but now russia will use nukes cos they losing tho
Hasn't the US more or less promised to respond directly militarily if they do that.

So it comes down to putin having the balls to call what might be a bluff.

But the nordstream sabotage indicate that it isn't a bluff (the US might be behind that).
 

bussyDESTROYER

Active member
Messages
84
#37
Hasn't the US more or less promised to respond directly militarily if they do that.

So it comes down to putin having the balls to call what might be a bluff.

But the nordstream sabotage indicate that it isn't a bluff (the US might be behind that).
russia has annexed parts of ukraine as russia and putin told if ukraine tries to take over those annexed parts he will use nukes, and ukraine is trying to take over those parts
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#38
russia has annexed parts of ukraine as russia and putin told if ukraine tries to take over those annexed parts he will use nukes, and ukraine is trying to take over those parts
Are you sure putin is going to risk ww3 in a losing position over some Ukrainian territories?
 

bussyDESTROYER

Active member
Messages
84
#39
Are you sure putin is going to risk ww3 in a losing position over some Ukrainian territories?
I think the US needs ww3 to happen if they want to sustain their war economy, thats y they destroyed the pipelines and r encouraging the ukrainians to attack russia
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#40
I think the US needs ww3 to happen if they want to sustain their war economy, thats y they destroyed the pipelines and r encouraging the ukrainians to attack russia
If that is the case putin really need to be careful since the US is looking for reasons to escalate the conflict.

I don't think it's about maintaining the economy though. I think it's about maintaining political control and grabbing more. The democrats are in bad shape for the next election so they really need a nuclear war to keep even their current level of societal control.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#42
w/e the reason - we in eu r fked anyway. how to survive the residues from the nukes in ukraine? overdose on iodine? wear hazmat suit 24/7? what to do???
Avoid living close to any major city or military base. Have food stockpiled.

A shelter is good to have but most likely you will not needed if you don't like close to a likely target.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#44
how r u fine? u live in sweden, sweden and finland will feel the impact of the nuke a lot.
I don't live close to any major city or military base (or any other military target).

And i am not well enough for putin to specifically target me with his nukes even though he probably should.
 

bussyDESTROYER

Active member
Messages
84
#45
I don't live close to any major city or military base (or any other military target).

And i am not well enough for putin to specifically target me with his nukes even though he probably should.
lmao of course russia is not going to nuke sweden, im talking about the residues from the nuke in ukraine - sweden will get hit hard.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#46
lmao of course russia is not going to nuke sweden, im talking about the residues from the nuke in ukraine - sweden will get hit hard.
Most of the radiation is short-lived, you just need to stay inside long enough and you avoid 99% of the radiation hazard.

Sweden isn't even that close, there will be more fallout over russia.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#48
Why is Russian army so weak? That's by design.
When Russia invaded, experts thought it would win in 24-72 hours. How come? On paper Russian superiority's overwhelming. Although Russia projects warlike image, its military is really weak and doesn't know how to fight wars.

Notwithstanding with its warlike image, boosted by massive PR campaign, Russian military have nearly zero experience of fighting conventional wars against other regular armies. They were quite successful in suppressing civilian riots ofc, in Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, etc

Russians were less successful in suppressing guerrilla movements in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Guerillas didn't much heavy weaponry, didn't have proper air defence. And yet, Russians suffered high casualties and lost the First Chechen War, despite overwhelming material superiority
Since WWII Russia never fought a conventional war against a regular army. The only exception was Georgia 2008. Russia invaded to support separatist movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and defeated tiny Georgian army. That was the closest Russia had to a real war in last 70 years.

Individual Russian military specialists fought in Korea, Vietnam, Angola etc. But army as a whole did not. Russian military machine, from recruitment to logistics, hasn't been checked in a war against a large regular army since 1945. That's the first experiment we're having now.

Since 1945 Russian army fought against enemies neither of which had a regular army of its own. Enemies of Russia had no structure, little training, tiny firepower. To compensate this, Russia heavily invests in propaganda glorifying its military. But what do they really look like?

December 2021. Thieves-in-law imposed tribute on a Russian military base, making NCOs & officers to pay them cash. They specifically target veterans of Syria who earned cash there. They harass, threaten, beat them. Leader of the gang was arrested but released in several months.

That's not an exception. That's a rule. Russian military is constantly harassed by thieves and forced to pay money. Just four random headlines on how thieves force literally any military including the ones managing the nuclear rockets to pay them tribute. Russian army is a prey.

Let's introduce some sociological context. Russian thieves traditionally portray themselves as the counterculture, the rebels. We don't care about the official law (Law of Cops), we follow only the Law of Thieves. We constitute a parallel state much superior to the official one.

Thieves dominate in prisons. Their propaganda is working so well, that many naive prisoners really view thieves as rebels. But then they start doubting the narrative. They wonder, what if thieves play rebels but in reality are actively collaborating with prison administration?

If prisoners refuse to work and try to sabotage the production, thieves will plead, persuade, threaten and then physically force them to resume their work. Thieves may develop very long and complicated argumentation, but with only one imperative - production goals must be met.

That's well reflected in culture. Consider, Беспредел - a great movie on how Russian institutional culture (shaped by prison culture) works in reality (Youtube: "А мы не работаем! хф Беспредел, 1989, фрагмент"). A prisoner refuses to work and tells administration. They inform the thieves and that's what happens.

And only much later prisoners realise: thieves are not a parallel state. They're just another branch of the same state machine. They're controlled opposition which actively cooperates with authorities, do whatever state commands and never ever cross the line, or they're doomed.

Thieves racketeering the military, including Syria veterans, nuke personnel is not an "accident". It's a deliberate government policy to keep professional military low in dominance hierarchy. Russian state purposefully keeps its military in this position. It's all part of a plan.

If you want, you can dig further into how harassed, how abused and how low in hierarchy the Russian military are. Of course the lowest position ever is taken by conscripts. There are many publications on how conscripts were forced into gay prostitution to earn cash for higher ups.

Ok, that's all part of a plan. But why would they develop such a plan? Well, higher-ups are afraid of the army. Russian thieves play rebels, being a part of state apparatus. The same way Russia plays a military regime being in fact a state security regime.

That's Putin celebrating the Day of State Security Worker. Indeed, the domination of State Security \"the new nobility\" over all other institutions is a particular feature of Putin's regime. Which hadn't been the case in USSR. State security rule is the major innovation of Putin.

State security are *not* the military. That's another institution which has very uneasy relations with soldiers. That's understandable. State security will easily suppress any civilian revolt and any guerilla. Thus the only inner force that could overthrow them would be the army.

You can read a more detailed account of relations between the Russian state and its army here. But for now I wanna stress, they're very concerned about the potential rivalry from the army and took every effort to prevent it. Thus they castrated the army.

One precaution is to do a cleansing after each military conflict. In peacetime, power of military generals is low. They're bounded by instructions, protocols, guidelines, are overwatched by state security and military prosecutors. But during the war this control nearly disappears.

The longer the war lasts, the less procedural and more personal military power becomes. Soon nobody cares about procedures. Everything is done by personal oral orders. Troops get used to unquestioning obedience to a general's word. So you have to do a cleaning up after each war.

State security fears potential rivalry from the army. So they introduced several mechanisms of control. One is to do a cleaning up after each war killing generals who got too influential among the troops. And leaving the less influential ones. That's a negative selection mechanism.

Kremlin actively promotes state security to the army positions. A typical monologue of a Russian professional military:
  1. [Long patriotic speech]
  2. Complaints on how he'll never get promoted, cuz all the positions are given to young state security with no military experience.
Third layer is extreme, unbelievable anti-illectualism among the military officers promoted by the state. If Prussian army was the most intellectual army in Europe, modern Russian is the least. Again, it's not an accident. It's a deliberate policy to minimise this internal threat.

Let's sum up. Kremlin is not maxing efficiency, it's minimising the threat. Recruit as low IQ officers as possible, give them very narrow training. If some officers are capable and rising quickly, kill them. Appoint as many state security to the army to make it more controllable.

To minimise the threat from the army, the ruling state security attacks the army mythos. Why would mafia even dare to racketeer military officers? Because they know in case of conflict the state will back the mafia. These guys stand much higher in Russian hierarchy than soldiers.

This explains all these strange phenomena such as thieves harassing the military bases, soldiers being forced into gay prostitution, etc. I don't think Putin personally ordered that (though he might). But he purposefully destroys the army mythos, to eliminate a rival for power.

Words cannot describe how low in dominance hierarchy the Russian army is. To get some idea, watch this video from a Russian official TV channel. An officer asks for a minute of silence for "our special operation boys dying there" and see what happens. Army has no respect at all.

If regime trained capable high morale infantry with intelligent officers, it'd constitute a mortal political threat. So it will maintain low morale incapable infantry with the dumbest officers possible and kill brighter ones. Artillery is way to fight *somehow* with these troops.

Russian regime pretends to be military. But it's not . Its thinking, language, methods are very state security. On Feb 24 Putin started a Special Operation in Ukraine and on Feb 27 congratulated Russian forces there with the annniversary of the "Day of Special Operation Forces".



Why Feb 27? What happened that day? On Feb 26, 2015 Putin ordered to establish a new holiday, the Day of Special Operation Forces. The first one will be tomorrow, Feb 27, 2015 - and then every year. Next day, Feb 27, 2015 oppositional leader Nemtsov was killed in view of Kremlin.



That's their mode of thinking. Killing Nemtsov is a special operation. Invasion of Ukraine is a special operation. Sounds dumb isn't it? Actually it makes sense. Russian regime is regime of cosplayers: state security agents who pretend to be soldiers and desire the military glory.



State security playing soldiers launched a Special Operation and accidentally got into a real war. They're scared. You see Shoygu is reporting to Putin "everything's going according to the plan". Watch Putin's body language. He knows it isn't. He doesn't trust the plan himself.

https://reddit.com/link/xy759g/video/buezgkungfs91/player

Initial Putin's assumptions were wrong. He launched invasion expecting no resistance. 5th Department of FSB which worked on Ukraine reported to Putin that Ukraine is just a cosplay and everyone switches to us the moment we come. Why? They told Putin whatever he wanted to hear.
At this point director of 5th department Sergey Beseda and his deputy are under house arrest. They are charged with embezzlement and "low quality intelligence data" he provided. Beseda hugely exaggerated pro-Russian sentiments and lied to Putin regarding the prospects of invasion.
Russian Federation is over. It's not gonna survive the war in Ukraine and certainly not gonna survive the defeat. However the political landscape of North Eurasia will look like after the war, new order will be built on completely different principles.



This post is based on a much longer original by Kamil Galeev.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#49
Why the Russian missile strike are good news for Ukraine
One big issue for Ukraine has been that putin has to maintain face and this results in him being overly aggressive. Putin needed some kind of win after his humiliating defeats on the battle field.

Pretty much all pro-putin morons are celebrating hard now after the russia army wasted precision-missiles on low-value civilian targets "look now the war is starting for real" when in reality russia really doesn't have much besides their nukes (which may or may not be in working condition at this point).

russia-losing.jpg


Ukraine will keep taking back territory and pro-putin moron will still think "russia is winning" because they managed to hit some playground and kill a few civilians, not something that actually wins a war.
 
Messages
84
#50
washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/macron-rules-out-nuclear-response-russia-nukes-ukraine

French President Emmanuel Macron ruled out nuclear retaliation against Russia if the Kremlin nuked Ukraine.
Citing France's decadeslong nuclear doctrine, the French leader argued that responding with nuclear force to a detonation in Ukraine is not in the nation's best interests and argued France wants to refrain from ushering in a larger war.
what to think of this?
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#51
what to think of this?
It makes perfect sense that they aren't going to respond with nuclear weapons if russia uses nukes against a non-NATO country. Instead the threat is to use conventional weapons to fuck russia which would work just fine.

euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/13/the-russian-army-will-be-annihilated-if-it-launches-a-nuclear-attack-warns-josep-borrell

The danger here is that if the west does that putin might keep escalating leading to WWII which is why it's important that he is deterred from nuking Ukraine in the first place. Being weak increases the risk of WWIII
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#52
Debunking: "Europe needs russian gas"
There has been a lot of moronic remarks by the remaining trolls/morons/shills still supporting vladimir putin of the type "there will be a cold winter for Europe" but the issue is that reality just doesn't point in that direction. Europe is actually doing just fine with gas storage over 90% full and prices are now dropping
1672231621599.png


https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas

Europe can still get gas from Norway, united states, etc. Netherlands has a lot of gas that could be extracted but it's not without issues (they don't really want to do that).

https://archive.ph/F1TWS
 

Attachments

Claire_Lovely

Well-known member
Messages
104
#53
@Admin Those posts you made were very insightful and shows the deep level of corruption within the Russian state and military. I had read they were supposed to do things like upgrade T-72s every 10 years but a lot of these were said to have taken place but never actually happened, with the generals pocketing most of the money.

It's even doubtful that many of Russia's nuclear weapons even work properly, as these require very heavy maintenance and possibly they may have gone unchecked.

Russia using Kalibr missiles and Shahed drones on population centers is only likely to increase Ukrainian resistance instead of bringing about a loss of morale.

Likely eventually we will see a total collapse of the Russian Federation, which will let the West assimilate parts of it, then leaving only China as the main adversary.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,141
#54
Verhofstadt: EU unfit for emerging 'new Age of Empires', time to act
It has been eight months since the war started and a new period in human history was born on our live TV screens. After the Cold War that started in Yalta, and after the victory of liberal democracy that culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new era has begun: a 'new Age of Empires'.

This new world order will not be based on the sovereignty of 199 individual countries, but on a brutal competition between big continental blocs — militarily as well as politically, economically and technologically. A competition not only on earth, but also in space, and not only physically, but also virtually on the internet.

By securing a third term, Xi has moved China from an autocracy to a dictatorship, to which India and Russia look jealously. A return of Trump is all too easily thinkable. Ultimately, we will not escape an existential fight between autocracy and democracy.

The inconvenient truth is that the European Union is not ready for this new age and the confrontations that it brings.

Instead of our democracies linking arms, implementing reforms and taking decisive action jointly, we see a lot of hesitation. Compared to the immediate and massive reaction of the Americans, the response of the European Union to the brutal invasion in Ukraine was slow and weak.
Besides the efforts of a few Central European and Baltic member states, the delivery of arms to Ukraine remain modest. And on sanctions the different packages come as fast as they are minimal.

Unlike the US, Europe will have no embargo on Russian oil in place until the beginning of next year. And from the so called 'Navalny list' of 6.000 citizens, who are the backbone of Putin's war machine, only 1,262 people have been sanctioned. Someone like Elvira Nabiullina for example, a key pillar of the regime as head of the Russian Central Bank, is sanctioned in the US, the UK and elsewhere, but not in Europe.

This reluctant European response is caused by the obsolete institutional system of the Union, a system still based on unanimity.

A veto by whoever of the 27 member states — be it a big or a small one — is sufficient to block any decision. Moreover, tensions as we see today, between the governments of France and Germany add to the incapacity to act.

It reminds us of the financial crisis. Also then, the Union settled for too little, too late, as if that's the best we can do. This was far removed from the decisive action taken during Covid , when we crossed boundaries in tackling the pandemic and raised the bar, with the NextGenerationEU fund, financed trough European bonds and new own resources.

Today we get nothing of all this, even when in-depth reforms in two crucial areas stand out.

First in energy. Instead of instantly creating a fully fledged Energy Union (breathing life into a promise made in 2006 at Hampton Court), we are taking reactive measures only. Vague 'roadmaps', 'dynamic price corridors' or 'voluntary common purchases' will not do the job. Even with the recent lowering of gas prices, we pay three times more for our gas than the Americans.

To tackle this, we need a real Energy Union. And that means the establishment of a common purchase platform that uses the EU's combined weight to shift markets (and not for 15% of the purchases). On top of that, a security fund to invest in renewables and common grids is needed. And finally an energy assistance plan to support households and businesses, instead of 27 national plans that fragment the single market. As we did with Covid, European bonds must be issued for that purpose.

Second in defence. The use of the European Peace Facility (EPF) to supply weapons to Ukraine and the common training of Ukrainian soldiers, is certainly useful, but it falls short of the dramatic shift we desperately need.

Today, the member states of the EU combined spend four times Russia's military budget. Together we spend roughly the same amount as China. And we get much, much less defence power in return.

The call for an increase of current budgets is totally useless if we don't end duplication, through the creation of a real European Defence Community (EDC) as the European pillar of NATO. Such a community will contain the establishment of joint armed forces on the level of the EU, as well as the common and mandatory procurement of weapons, an absolute necessity to reduce the inflation of weapons systems in place today.
A European Defence Community is simply a precondition to survive in the new, threatening era that began on the 24th of February.

A geopolitical Europe is only possible if we are ready to redefine our politics and to reform our institutions. By giving up veto rights and by sharing sovereignty in the domains where we need it most. By eliminating autocratic rule within the EU so that they stop undermining our actions and credibility. By creating a sustainable European budget based on EU wide bonds and genuine own resources — in sharp contrast to the current financing based on member states contributions, which only leads to friction and fragmented policies.
It's time to act.

The Commission has to outline and come forward with a global and ambitious vision for the future and at the same time table a numbers of reforms to make it happen. Like Jacques Delors did by tackling the crisis through the launch of the single market and the preparation for a single European currency.

Equally, national governments have to come out of their comfort zone to shape Europe together, including the prospect for change treaties. And if all this is not possible with 27, let's move forward with a coalition of the willing. With authoritarianism on the march, we can no longer be allowed to be held back.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/156350
 
Top