I think I prefer the original line here but whatever.
https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1507923597070901250?t=SJ4ntq-WWypkpPoeC38d9w&s=19
10 Likes
https://twitter.com/billroggio/status/1507698393681903617
I think there’s some truth to this thread. I’ve read other scattered pieces that they are holding back to some degree. Of course they’re still bombing civilian targets, and doing much worse with artillery. But it seems they aren’t going full Aleppo, yet. Not sure that counts for anything.
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1507875594243297280
https://twitter.com/megansmolenyak/status/1027668464864030720
They’re going all in on treason basically. This is their moment.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1507833769801170948
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1507833771499954176
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1507833773110579209
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1507833774859603973
Kinda like what I was saying. By walking it back, they get “regime change” into the conversation where it wasn’t there before, w/o actually advocating for it.
https://twitter.com/ThomDaugherty/status/1507841271209017350
What the fuck does “Putin cannot remain in power” actually mean, though? Like it reminds me of the “holding people accountable” thing that Chapo make fun of a lot. Clearly Putin can, in fact, remain in power unless someone does something to get him out of power. What is that going to be? Sanctions? Didn’t seem to work great with Castro, Saddam or the Kim clan in North Korea.
Basically I regard it as just herp derp rhetoric until you specify what that actually means. Like “a dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people cannot be allowed to remain in power” probably sounded reasonable in 2003 if you didn’t realise what that was actually going to entail.
Also this Hertling dude co-wrote this in 2016:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/16/putin-russia-trump-2016-pearl-harbor-219015/
Saying that the interference in the election was “an act of war” and that it’s time the US “responded accordingly”. How much risk of hot war between US and Russia would you take, looking back, to avert the damage Russia did to the US between 2016 and 2022? Cause I got “zero”.
Putin is 69 and likely has some kind of serious illness (and obviously US intelligence has better info on that than we do). Doing nothing is always an option. This idea of having to DO SOMETHING even when it’s not clear what should be done has a very bad historical record.
Edit: My mistake, he wrote that in 2018, which is worse.
And yeah OF COURSE Russia are holding back on the kind of destruction that they could wreak if they wanted to. Kyiv is the cradle of Russian civilization and contains jewels of the Russian empire, I really don’t think Putin wants to go rubble mode on that.
I’ve gotten some pushback on here for referring to this as a “regional war”, but it’s worth emphasising that even the Ukrainian government put the civilian death toll at around 4,000 circa March 24. This is a stupid, tragic war, but the firebombing of Dresden alone cost, well, estimates vary, but well into the 5 figures of civilian deaths. A modern German commission estimated 25,000. I’m not interested in a debate of the morals around total war on the Third Reich but it’s just important to have a frame of reference for how much worse it is possible for things to get.
1 Like
Sure. But Putin isn’t holding back out of the goodness of his heart. He’s probably determined some correct amount of civilian deaths that make the most strategic sense.
It’s probably too hard to rule over empty territory initially. Just secure the win, subdue the populace, move out/imprison/kill those who resist, hit the rest with the firehose of propaganda, and in a year or two the whole of the Donbas, and the land bridge to Crimea, is brainwashed like Crimea.
Also he seems to be going after the Russian-speaking cities the hardest. Like he’s trying to punish them worst of all for betraying him. Or just kill anyone who doesn’t want to be part of Mother Russia. Or set an example to try to get Kyiv to capitulate when the time comes.
Although he probably realizes by now that ship has sailed, unless his generals are completely snowing him about how the war is going.
Putin is legit fucking evil is what I’m saying. And as bad as the US is/has been, we’re not straight up Nazi evil. For the first time in my lifetime there’s a war with a very clear bad guy and good guy. I’m also fairly drunk.
1 Like
https://twitter.com/tinso_ww/status/1508020679806967810
There’s a really disturbing video that shows three Russian POWs very likely getting shot in the leg, unless they’re faking it really really well.
There’s some debate as to why Ukrainians would take this video and upload it if they really did it. Which seems reasonable. It’s bad for PR and it’s bad to get Russian troops to surrender, which is what they want.
But who knows. Ukrainian troops may have gotten really pissed and wanted to send a message.
https://twitter.com/brokenpixelua/status/1508007899695656960
I really want to visit Ukraine after all this is over. They look like the most fun people.
Like Glasgow, another place I want to visit, is supposed to be vs. Edinburgh where everyone is supposed to be dour.
2 Likes
Dude for real what the fuck are you talking about. Like this is exactly what I meant by Marvel Villain Brain, because you have this idea of Russian ethno-nationalism as the primary motivation for the war and then when faced with the fact that Russia is turning majority Russian speaking cities into rubble you’re like “oh I guess Putin just really wants to demonstrate how evil he is to everyone”. Like either take a look at a map or read this:
I’m not saying nostalgia for Russian empire or whatever is a total non-factor in this war, but much of what Russia is doing is explainable in prosaic terms of control of resources etc.
Did you read this part of what I posted? The whole point is that killing everyone is bad strategically when securing the land bridge is the real goal.
Russia mostly lost the winter war with Finland, but they still walked away with more territory than they started with. If Putin can walk away with more territory than he started with, he’ll spin it as a win.
I did but I ignored it on the grounds that I had no idea what it meant. Shelling the fuck out of Mariupol is happening because winning street battles is hard under any circumstances and doubly so when your infantry sucks.
Also Edinburgh is a great city and the people are awesome. I haven’t been to Glasgow though.
Putin could be shelling Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy, and a bunch of other cities which are mostly surrounded, just as bad as Mariupol. But he seems to be ignoring them for the time being. Clearly Mariupol is more important for some reason.
According to Rick Steves and Tony Bourdain Glaswegians are fun and Edinburgians(?) are dour.
???
That reason is geographical location, that’s my whole point.
1 Like
And mine, so I don’t understand why you’re DUDEing me.
Remember I’m the one who posted in the first place that Putin could be wiping out a lot more civilians than he is now if he wanted to. Let’s just be clear it’s not because he has any form of empathy for Ukrainians or any other human beings.
So much other horrible stuff is happening inside the occupied areas of Ukraine. Putin is legit evil. Agreed?