Moscow targeted again as Kyiv steps up drone attacks inside Russia
Moscow targeted again as Kyiv steps up drone attacks inside Russia
Russia says Ukraine targeted Moscow with drones on Sunday, the latest in a series of attacks that have brought the Ukraine war to Russia’s capital.
Russia says Ukraine targeted Moscow with drones on Sunday, the latest in a series of attacks that have brought the Ukraine war to Russia’s capital.
You're viewing a single thread.
People can turn away from supporting a war pretty quickly when it suddently reaches your doorstep.
Or they can become more in favor of it.
That was my take, given Putin history of the checyen false flag I was almost thinking false flag to get home support, it is only the fact Kyiv, while not actively admitting, still hint at responsible that changed mind. It does seem a odd tactic going for such a dense civilian heavily defended area for little advantage in stopping war machine.
That is not what has ever happened at any point in time historically, I actually can't think of a single example. When war is on the doorstep support for your own side typically hardens massively.
The times where populations have turned against wars have always been when the troops are fighting far away from home in lands that the home population feels they shouldn't be dying in.
This will only make people cling to support for the military because they rely on it for personal safety.
Then they can watch their entire country burn. FAFO. Slava Ukraini.
Mate you're advocating for a genocide against civilians. That's not acceptable, and all you're doing by writing this stuff online is creating content that Russians read and think to themselves "wow, the west really are fascists that want to murder us all". It doesn't help, it ends up getting used to reinforce the propaganda.
They're the ones doing the genociding and supporting the genociding. They're the ones supporting the butchers of Bucha and the siege of Mariupol. They're the ones taking selfies in the ruins of Ukrainian homes for aesthetics.
What would you have done when the Nazis invaded Poland? Would you have wrung hands at the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo?
I made my choice. I joined the strategic nuclear fleet as an SSBN sailor. Sometimes the only language a nation will understand is force.
I’m claustrophobic so picked jumping out of planes instead but same idea. It’s fuckin wild to me that we spent 40 years arming up to fight Ivan and now half the country wants to hand them the keys to the football just to own the libs. They fucked around and are finding out that our old dusty shit off the shelf is eating them alive in properly motivated hands. Oh well
Slava Ukraini
Yes I absolutely would have wrung hands at the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. I also absolutely oppose the nukes that were dropped, completely unnecessary and monstrous loss of life. I don't quite know what you're getting at with Poland, that could have been prevented if the French and English had accepted the Soviet offer to stop it pre-emptively.
We don't need to advocate for the murder of civilians. It's just obscene barbarism, and all it will lead to is more murder of civilians in response.
I joined the strategic nuclear fleet as an SSBN sailor
Ahh I see. That adequately explains bloodthirsty fashy barbarism and desire to murder civilians then.
So you're saying you're in support of appeasement of Nazis. How did that work out for Europe last time?
Sometimes the only way to get a fascist nation to stop is to bomb the ever living shit out of them until they stand the fuck down.
I didn't say either of those things. It's wild how much this community rags on twitter for outrage and assuming the worst possible position of anyone that is responding while that seems to be what this community does constantly.
Sometimes the only way to get a fascist nation to stop is to bomb the ever living shit out of them until they stand the fuck down.
Murdering civilians is not in fact how the nazis were stopped. Vastly out-producing them and outnumbering them in terms of armour was. I don't know why you think killing civilians is in any way strategically beneficial. Its main effective use is as a terror action against an occupied population.
This is just really disgusting bloodthirsty shit. The civilians have no less choice in this war than you did in Iraq or Afghanistan. But judging by your character I reckon I can assume you're actually proud of the 2million you killed there.
Strategically the term is "countervalue". In purely military terms, it removes the ability of the enemy to continue regenerating its troops or keep its war economy and industry functioning. That destruction of industrial ability was the primary purpose of the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, as well as the primary purpose that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the list of targets.
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were pointless. The former as it destabilized the region and had no real strategic value besides oil which was already procured from the Saudis, and the latter because anyone we were actually trying to target could have been taken out with long distance strikes instead of trying to occupy and create a clearly unwanted government for the inhabitants.
as well as the primary purpose that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the list of targets.
No it fucking wasn't lmao.
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were pointless.
"Were", maybe wanna check on that whole past tense thing because you're still there. Against the will of the people.
Pretending not to be in Syria while still being in Syria too... Stealing the oil.
the only way to get a fascist nation to stop is to bomb the ever living shit out of them until they stand the fuck down
Let me tell you about fascism. The name comes from latin word Fasces, which is the name for a bunch of sticks wrapped around an axe, a tool used in ancient Rome to beat and execute those civilians who dare to stand against the government's imperial ambitions.
Then, it was adopted by fascist Italian government as a symbol of national unity by means of beating and executing those who stand against it. We know what happened then - they've tried to conquer the world.
Now, you're calling for bombing of the cities, and, therefore, causing deaths of innocent civilians in an attempt intimidate those who stand against your government's imperial ambitions.
Think about it, are you're saying that you should go fascist to beat fascists?
Mate I don't think most russian people are reading an obscure, western primarily english speaking social media site, and the ones that are are probably more likely to be against the war.
👋
It takes just one journalist to see it for it to be shown on national TV. But you're right, they are unlikely to see it on this relatively obscure social media site when there are thousands of literal nazis with ukrainian flags and checkmarks over at
twitterX.com, they can just take one of theirtweetsX's instead.Oh of course there's not many reading here. But the point is that this behaviour should be opposed because its normalisation here means that the users go elsewhere and normalise it there too. This is prevalent all over the place because nobody bothers to call it out and point out how unhelpful it is.
Even Navalny's team, who I despise as the man's a fascist, has said the same thing I'm currently saying.
That is not what has ever happened at any point in time historically, I actually can’t think of a single example.
Russia in 1917
Mahkno? I'm fairly sure they walked under a very pirate-ey black flag back then.
Worth noting that the actual origin of the bisected red/black flag is the First International in 1864, which was both anarchist+communist before the split occurred between Marx and Bakunin. Anarchists would be banned from the future ones as a result of the split and disagreements that occurred. They flew the red flag alone from that point onwards.
That is not what has ever happened at any point in time historically, I actually can’t think of a single example.
There are countless historical examples of cities and nations surrendering without a fight when faced with attack. Just look at the Mongol conquests for an obvious starting point.
Civilians do not decide whether to surrender or not. Militaries and leadership do.
You really don't read much history, do you?
Do you want to give some examples?
I would if I thought you were participating in the discussion good faith, but that's not something CCP tankies are capable of, so I guess go find a way through that firewall and google it yourself. You won't, though, because you guys have no interest in true facts.
That's a no then
It usually has the opposite effect and hardens resolve
Press X to doubt.
Everyone is a badass until bullets start whizzing by your ass.
By that logic Ukraine would have capitulated by now...
Agression and defense are very different motivators.
If your country decides to attack another country then your country is an agressor, but if the defending country comes and blows up the street in front of your home you don't think you'd feel like you need to defend not getting your home blown up?
Question isn't about attacking in Ukraine, question is about defending Russia from Ukranian attacks. Hence it would be a defensive motivator when your family is about to be bombed by Ukraine in Russia vs you invading Ukraine.
Several million people fled the country. There is no option to leave anymore.
See The Blitz
Idk man, humans are wild. WW2 germany fought for a loooong time after the war had really been lost.
All it took was a harbor…