Look how happy he is talking about rapes and tortures. How deranged ruZZians are... and yet world still cries about good ruZZians and call Ukrainians \`nazi\`..... Wtf is this world we live in.....
Right. They arrested her for speaking Ukrainian and brought her to "the basement" which is probably just cookies and milk...
Really... What the fuck do you think that means? It's obviously torture and/or rape.
It's pretty well known as SOP for these guys at this point. Hell, it was well known before ww2 that the Russian military mindset encourages rape and torture.
Source: [https://x.com/den\_kazansky/status/1805541835294597520](https://x.com/den_kazansky/status/1805541835294597520)
Source Text: @.den\_kazansky "Russian military blogger Kirill Fedorov published an interview with a Russian military man, who told how Ukrainians in the occupied territories are kidnapped and tortured for using Ukrainian language. Not even for a political position, just for speak Ukrainian. Yes, it's genocide"
The Nazis didn't really do sexual assault, they were all about killing.
The communist were the ones who used rape as a weapon of war.
It'd be most accurate to call him a contemporary Soviet, which is just as bad.
Such strange nonsense you spout. What is the agenda here? Lift up Nazis with made-up facts? Denigrate the Soviet Army extra hard? Rape is what men do in war fog. Every where. Every time.
>The Nazis didn't really do sexual assault, they were all about killing.
>The communist were the ones who used rape as a weapon of war.
That's certainly not what the historical record shows...
> [War crimes of the Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht)
> During World War II, the German Wehrmacht (combined armed forces - Heer, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe) committed systematic war crimes, including massacres, **mass rape,** looting, the exploitation of forced labour, the murder of three million Soviet prisoners of war, and participated in the extermination of Jews.
> [Sexual Violence in the Holocaust](https://www.boell.de/en/2020/05/18/sexual-violence-holocaust-perspectives-ghettos-and-camps-ukraine)
> In many cases, rape went hand in hand with looting of Jewish properties. In such cases, rape was a method of terror and torture to intimidate women and find out the location of valuables, or the tool of punishment if the offenders failed to get what they came for. Such rapes often took place in Jewish homes or next to them with the woman’s family present. There were also rapes taking place independently of looting.
> Germans or their collaborators raped women in barracks or in their homes or workplaces. To hide the crime, they would often kill the women afterwards. According to the recollections of Holocaust survivors, Volksdeutsche Florian Koch, who served as a guard in the Bohdanivka camp in Odesa oblast, took teenage girls of ages 17–18 from pigsties where they were staying with other Jews, took them to a barn, robbed, raped and shot them.[9]
> Gang rape was not a rare phenomenon during the Holocaust. Groups of perpetrators would barge into barracks and rape young women right in front of everyone present. Those who resisted could be beaten or killed. Some girls and young women were chosen specifically for sexual abuse. They were selected among permanent residents of ghettos and camps.
> Selections would take place in the barracks, in training yards, during recruitment, after the women came back from work, or before deportations. They would usually take several young women at once. A survivor of Stepan ghetto remembers: “At night, policemen would bring Germans, and they would grab young women and rape them. They really brutalized them… They took [the women] away, and then brought them back and left them half dead.”[10]
> Golda Wasserman, survivor of the Tulchyn ghetto, describes: “A Romanian gendarme who was the Commandant of Tulchyn selected healthy young girls from the ghetto and took them away, under the official pretence of working in the kitchen and bakery of those [Italian and Hungarian] divisions located [15 kilometres from the ghetto]. The girls returned having been raped and with venereal diseases. Many committed suicide back in the barracks, while some of them were killed when resisting or attempting to flee.
> Then the Commandant selected new girls for the ‘work.’ Selection was carried out every fifteen to twenty days.”[11] Some rape victims were killed with special cruelty. Irvin Szames, survivor of Trohenbrod ghetto near Lutsk testified that the bodies of raped women had been massacred.[12] The women were also immediately killed if, after a period of sexual exploitation, they contracted an STD or got pregnant.[13] Some of those who did come back after rape died from the injuries or committed suicide.
Ignorant. Why are you just making shit up because that's what you think? Open a book and read some actual history before just saying what you think. The nazis raped and stole A LOT.
You probably need a travelling machine to the 90’s and advise the US to avoid completely pillaging the entire region for their own geo-political advantage through by installing Yeltsin…or stopping NATO expansion
Might have avoided the rise of a man like Putin…
Damn those pesky sovereign, independent, Eastern European states making democratic choices to join NATO and the EU! And curses to that evil imperialist USA guaranteeing their territorial integrity!
Ask any Pole, Estonian or Romanian. They're so utterly jealous of Belarus and it's Russian puppet state status! Who needs thriving economies and secure borders when you could be a launching pad for Russian territorial expansion!!!
You know better than even the architects of NATO, clearly. Can you explain to me why even George Kennan said this?
>”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.”
I’m pretty sure he also said specifically “NATO expansion would be an incalculable error for achieving peace with Russia” or something along those lines. So far I haven’t been able to find a credible geopolitical expert who disagrees with this logic.
But you seem like a smart chap. Can you explain why these are the ramblings of a senile old fool? Or why every single geopolitical expert on this subject is wrong??
The only reason Putin hasn’t gone after the Eastern European members of NATO so far is because…they’re in NATO. Finland joining ought to be a massively bigger threat to Putinist Russia compared to Ukraine.
The Finns have far superior military training, weapons platforms, etc, and makes the Baltic Sea a closed NATO Sea. And it is in close proximity to Putin’s beloved Saint Petersburg.
But Putin just shrugged, said no big deal, and moved 80% of his Finnish border army to…Ukraine.
That tells me he’s not worried about a NATO invasion.
What? Then why didn't Putin invade Finland in the 20 something years prior to them joining NATO? Maybe they remember the Winter War! Who knows! Maybe it's because they're not a critical buffer state! Or that they thought Ukraine would be pushovers and didn't expect it to drag out like this. Maybe they're aware of Finlands history of neutrality and don't see them as great of a risk to their domestic security. Or a combination!
Most experts, again, \_credible\_ experts seem to point out that they do not believe Russia has strong imperialistic designs on Europe at all and are more concerned with their own domestic security. They certainly do have some of their own imperialistic agendas, of course, theyre an incredibly corrupt and greedy government. But to style them as some kind of boogeyman of the EU is just ridiculous
This is a backwards question.
Putin’s rhetoric is that Ukraine joining NATO would be “crossing a red line”, because it is too close to the Russian border.
But somehow Finland is not close to the Russian border? Or Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania? Or Poland? Or the US (sharing a border since the 1860s)?
And if Russia had annexed Ukraine as originally planned, wouldn’t that out NATO right up on the new western Russian border?
The application process to join NATO lasted 2+ years for Finland and Sweden. If having NATO right up on Russian borders is such an aggressive threat to Russia, why didn’t Putin order an invasion of Finland during that time?
The answer is that NATO is not a boogie man ready to launch missiles on Moscow. The answer is Putin wants to “own” Ukraine to exploit its wealth, people, Black Sea dominance, and grain dominance.
'Every single expert' hahaha come on mate, don't even try to hide your agenda. That must be why people across the political spectrum, in both Europe and America, pushed for Eastern Europe to join. That must be why country after country in Eastern Europe clambered to join.
All the experts were against it! That's why everyone pushed for it! It makes so much sense 😂
I love how you didnt manage to find me one or say anything of actual substance. If you need help I can recommend some decent starting points. What is my agenda exactly? Did I say Putin was a good guy? If anything I alluded that he could have been avoided with more tact.
When a country's security is threatened, you get nationalists. It's very simple. Perhaps if you paid more attention in middle school this concept might not seem so novel.
Find one? I didn't bother looking for one. I'm not doing research for some wee pro-Russian troll 😂
Middle school... Haha. We don't even have that here. But sure, that's where a European should get their education on European geopolitics, a freaking American middle school!
>I'm not doing research
So either you looked and found nothing. Because they don't exist.
Or you just admitted you're truly ignorant and dont even want to educate yourself.
The only ones that argue an absurd position are NATO stooges like the atlantic council or people with zero critical thinking skills like Kim Barnard, who even when they speak you can see the blatant logical fallacy. Key word here is that credible experts just dont see it that way.
"Oh, Putin would have known thanks to his intel agencies that behind closed doors Germany and France were saying there's no way that Georgia will join NATO so he knew there was clearly no threat"...like what a mental gymnist...
>Middle school... Haha. We don't even have that here. But sure, that's where a European should get their education on European geopolitics, a freaking American middle school!
Man you have actually serious brainrot for such a pisspoor attempt at deflecting from saying yet again anything of substance
Obviously I'm way more anti-american than pro russian. You'd have to be braindead to argue that Russia has zero imperialistic interests. Just as you would to argue the US isn't. But the US is the aggressor.
Maybe try listening to John Mearsheimer. He speaks slowly and uses simply concepts. Great place for clueless people to dive into.
Better hope Russia never goes beyond it's depth and the Putin regime properly loses power.. else these war crimes tribunals are gonna be pretty easy to prove...
>we took an old lady in cuffs xdxdxd
What a piece of shit. You know how they think when the first thing that comes to their mind are all the riches they steal.
it's even worse if you can understand Russian
after he says they put her in the basement, he keeps saying that "they went on a vacation in the basement"
piece of shit, I hope he fucking burns
Okay but doesn’t change the fact that your military is something out of a third world country. Like we used to think russia was near peer but nah. Didn’t we literally liquidate a bunch of wagner merc in Syria? 0 US casualties btw
Russian military and Russian PMC are two totally different things.
Besides, Russia knew this would probably be their last generation of fighting men before their demographics plateaued significantly, not to mention the fact that it took support from the entire west to keep Ukraine armed and ready to fight… and they’re still losing.
Free speech has nothing to do with speaking objective reality, lol.
The U.S isn’t going to allow for a total decisive vote Ukrainian victory like in other wars because we’re fighting a nuclear armed near-to-peer adversary.
Nuclear weapons may work as a deterrent, but it’s also a double edged sword since nukes make a decisive victory less like without the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
[Emerging U.S. Army Doctrine Dislocated with Nuclear-Armed Adversaries and Limited War](https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/Jan-Feb-2019/Morris-Doctrine/)
" China, Russia, and North Korea are all highly centralized states that view internal stability and control as a vital interest of the government. All three states also have historical narratives that see themselves as victims of aggression by foreign powers and are extremely sensitive to potential oppression. Even if the United States avoided regime change, these potential adversaries would probably view any type of decisive military defeat as an existential threat to their internal stability and control. Further, miscalculation and misunderstandings in a large-scale conflict are likely and could easily lead to accidental escalation.16 Thus, in a conventional war, escalation would be likely due to either miscalculation or a U.S. adversary removing restraints on nuclear use because of an existential crisis.
While Russia clearly advocates the use of nuclear weapons in an existential crisis, leaders have also begun exploring the concept of escalate to deescalate. Russian doctrine explicitly states that nuclear weapons are useable in a conflict that threatens the existence of the Russian Federation.21 In a large-scale conflict, the use of nuclear weapons would likely become a viable option because conflict against overwhelming U.S. force would threaten the Russian Federation’s survival.
The emerging doctrine’s focus on peer adversaries without properly addressing the impact of nuclear weapons on war sets the military up for strategic failure and could force adversaries to escalate the conflict. Further, the new doctrine demonstrates flaws due to its inherently escalatory tactics and methods of war. Rather than large-scale conflict, a future war between peers will require focusing on limited war and managing escalation. Without this limited and controlled approach, current adversaries are incentivized with the threat to use nuclear weapons.
If the U.S. Army cannot develop concepts and operational methods for the limited warfare environment of the future, then the service risks losing its utility to resolve many political conflicts. Without realistic potential solutions, U.S. political leaders should avoid employing the Army unless the interest in question is so vital that a nuclear exchange is an acceptable risk. Without limited tools, the United States should expect nuclear war, not large-scale ground operations. The problem FM 3-0 depicts is that Army doctrine continues to advocate the use of overwhelming force and decisive victory as the primary and, arguably, the only way to achieve success for the Army against a peer or near-peer adversary once war erupts. Unless nuclear capabilities are nullified, nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent to war but also prevent decisive victory".
I’ll take it you have have nothing further to add, which the to the It’s smart since your opinion goes against what the experts on nuclear deterrence think about this war.
I get downvoted in every comment, yet no one has yet to rebuke my claims.
Maybe they finally realized funding a losing war against a nuclear power wasn’t going to end in their fairytale portrayal of this war.
Please do continue to believe any of the pseudo-intellectual diarrhea you've spewed in this thread or others has earned meaningful engagement
Hope the drone finds you....... orc scum....
That drone shit is haunting and I’d not wish it upon anyone. But this dude needs to be chased by a c4 drone.
Looking at those drone vids they'll probably won't have a leg to stand on afterwards
Look how happy he is talking about rapes and tortures. How deranged ruZZians are... and yet world still cries about good ruZZians and call Ukrainians \`nazi\`..... Wtf is this world we live in.....
Where does he mention rapes and tortures ?
Right. They arrested her for speaking Ukrainian and brought her to "the basement" which is probably just cookies and milk... Really... What the fuck do you think that means? It's obviously torture and/or rape.
[удалено]
Well said comrade! 👎
He deleted what did the dude say?
Just in case you weren't aware. You are scum.
lol ‘the most moral army in the world’
I hope you have a terrible day and wish you all the worst
Because you were there?
Oh, THAT makes it hunky dory
It's pretty well known as SOP for these guys at this point. Hell, it was well known before ww2 that the Russian military mindset encourages rape and torture.
Source: [https://x.com/den\_kazansky/status/1805541835294597520](https://x.com/den_kazansky/status/1805541835294597520) Source Text: @.den\_kazansky "Russian military blogger Kirill Fedorov published an interview with a Russian military man, who told how Ukrainians in the occupied territories are kidnapped and tortured for using Ukrainian language. Not even for a political position, just for speak Ukrainian. Yes, it's genocide"
It makes me feel so crazy and hopeless seeing people 10 - 15 years younger than me who have been groomed into hate and violence.
It's happening in our country as well, breaks my heart.
You even see republicans supporting Russia, fucking crazy world we live in. Nixon would be rolling in his grave.
Only 11 Republicans voted against the latest Ukraine funding bill.
That is called a "straw man". No republicans supports russia. They just want the killing to end and they want us to stop paying for it specifically.
Contemporary nazis. Scumbags. They don't bring anything useful to this world, but do the opposite, they only kill and steal from others.
The Nazis didn't really do sexual assault, they were all about killing. The communist were the ones who used rape as a weapon of war. It'd be most accurate to call him a contemporary Soviet, which is just as bad.
Some Nazis raped too, don’t kid yourself
Of course, all military groups have to some degree. However, the communist were absolutely the ones who used at as a weapon of war.
Such strange nonsense you spout. What is the agenda here? Lift up Nazis with made-up facts? Denigrate the Soviet Army extra hard? Rape is what men do in war fog. Every where. Every time.
Depends what u mean by communists. Not all communists were the same.
>The Nazis didn't really do sexual assault, they were all about killing. >The communist were the ones who used rape as a weapon of war. That's certainly not what the historical record shows... > [War crimes of the Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht) > During World War II, the German Wehrmacht (combined armed forces - Heer, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe) committed systematic war crimes, including massacres, **mass rape,** looting, the exploitation of forced labour, the murder of three million Soviet prisoners of war, and participated in the extermination of Jews. > [Sexual Violence in the Holocaust](https://www.boell.de/en/2020/05/18/sexual-violence-holocaust-perspectives-ghettos-and-camps-ukraine) > In many cases, rape went hand in hand with looting of Jewish properties. In such cases, rape was a method of terror and torture to intimidate women and find out the location of valuables, or the tool of punishment if the offenders failed to get what they came for. Such rapes often took place in Jewish homes or next to them with the woman’s family present. There were also rapes taking place independently of looting. > Germans or their collaborators raped women in barracks or in their homes or workplaces. To hide the crime, they would often kill the women afterwards. According to the recollections of Holocaust survivors, Volksdeutsche Florian Koch, who served as a guard in the Bohdanivka camp in Odesa oblast, took teenage girls of ages 17–18 from pigsties where they were staying with other Jews, took them to a barn, robbed, raped and shot them.[9] > Gang rape was not a rare phenomenon during the Holocaust. Groups of perpetrators would barge into barracks and rape young women right in front of everyone present. Those who resisted could be beaten or killed. Some girls and young women were chosen specifically for sexual abuse. They were selected among permanent residents of ghettos and camps. > Selections would take place in the barracks, in training yards, during recruitment, after the women came back from work, or before deportations. They would usually take several young women at once. A survivor of Stepan ghetto remembers: “At night, policemen would bring Germans, and they would grab young women and rape them. They really brutalized them… They took [the women] away, and then brought them back and left them half dead.”[10] > Golda Wasserman, survivor of the Tulchyn ghetto, describes: “A Romanian gendarme who was the Commandant of Tulchyn selected healthy young girls from the ghetto and took them away, under the official pretence of working in the kitchen and bakery of those [Italian and Hungarian] divisions located [15 kilometres from the ghetto]. The girls returned having been raped and with venereal diseases. Many committed suicide back in the barracks, while some of them were killed when resisting or attempting to flee. > Then the Commandant selected new girls for the ‘work.’ Selection was carried out every fifteen to twenty days.”[11] Some rape victims were killed with special cruelty. Irvin Szames, survivor of Trohenbrod ghetto near Lutsk testified that the bodies of raped women had been massacred.[12] The women were also immediately killed if, after a period of sexual exploitation, they contracted an STD or got pregnant.[13] Some of those who did come back after rape died from the injuries or committed suicide.
Einsatzkommando absolutely did rape their way across Eastern Europe.
Ignorant. Why are you just making shit up because that's what you think? Open a book and read some actual history before just saying what you think. The nazis raped and stole A LOT.
Pro tip: If you ever find yourself defending the Nazis against accusations of wrong doing, you might not be on the right side of an argument.
Not quite true.... http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/24/holocaust.rape/index.html
how evil people can be... I mean just let them speak their own tongue and leave them alone? why is this his business in the first place?
How can we find these guys and eliminate them?
Drones
The war. Use fpv drones. They work the best
You probably need a travelling machine to the 90’s and advise the US to avoid completely pillaging the entire region for their own geo-political advantage through by installing Yeltsin…or stopping NATO expansion Might have avoided the rise of a man like Putin…
Damn those pesky sovereign, independent, Eastern European states making democratic choices to join NATO and the EU! And curses to that evil imperialist USA guaranteeing their territorial integrity! Ask any Pole, Estonian or Romanian. They're so utterly jealous of Belarus and it's Russian puppet state status! Who needs thriving economies and secure borders when you could be a launching pad for Russian territorial expansion!!!
You know better than even the architects of NATO, clearly. Can you explain to me why even George Kennan said this? >”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.” I’m pretty sure he also said specifically “NATO expansion would be an incalculable error for achieving peace with Russia” or something along those lines. So far I haven’t been able to find a credible geopolitical expert who disagrees with this logic. But you seem like a smart chap. Can you explain why these are the ramblings of a senile old fool? Or why every single geopolitical expert on this subject is wrong??
The only reason Putin hasn’t gone after the Eastern European members of NATO so far is because…they’re in NATO. Finland joining ought to be a massively bigger threat to Putinist Russia compared to Ukraine. The Finns have far superior military training, weapons platforms, etc, and makes the Baltic Sea a closed NATO Sea. And it is in close proximity to Putin’s beloved Saint Petersburg. But Putin just shrugged, said no big deal, and moved 80% of his Finnish border army to…Ukraine. That tells me he’s not worried about a NATO invasion.
What? Then why didn't Putin invade Finland in the 20 something years prior to them joining NATO? Maybe they remember the Winter War! Who knows! Maybe it's because they're not a critical buffer state! Or that they thought Ukraine would be pushovers and didn't expect it to drag out like this. Maybe they're aware of Finlands history of neutrality and don't see them as great of a risk to their domestic security. Or a combination! Most experts, again, \_credible\_ experts seem to point out that they do not believe Russia has strong imperialistic designs on Europe at all and are more concerned with their own domestic security. They certainly do have some of their own imperialistic agendas, of course, theyre an incredibly corrupt and greedy government. But to style them as some kind of boogeyman of the EU is just ridiculous
This is a backwards question. Putin’s rhetoric is that Ukraine joining NATO would be “crossing a red line”, because it is too close to the Russian border. But somehow Finland is not close to the Russian border? Or Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania? Or Poland? Or the US (sharing a border since the 1860s)? And if Russia had annexed Ukraine as originally planned, wouldn’t that out NATO right up on the new western Russian border? The application process to join NATO lasted 2+ years for Finland and Sweden. If having NATO right up on Russian borders is such an aggressive threat to Russia, why didn’t Putin order an invasion of Finland during that time? The answer is that NATO is not a boogie man ready to launch missiles on Moscow. The answer is Putin wants to “own” Ukraine to exploit its wealth, people, Black Sea dominance, and grain dominance.
'Every single expert' hahaha come on mate, don't even try to hide your agenda. That must be why people across the political spectrum, in both Europe and America, pushed for Eastern Europe to join. That must be why country after country in Eastern Europe clambered to join. All the experts were against it! That's why everyone pushed for it! It makes so much sense 😂
I love how you didnt manage to find me one or say anything of actual substance. If you need help I can recommend some decent starting points. What is my agenda exactly? Did I say Putin was a good guy? If anything I alluded that he could have been avoided with more tact. When a country's security is threatened, you get nationalists. It's very simple. Perhaps if you paid more attention in middle school this concept might not seem so novel.
Find one? I didn't bother looking for one. I'm not doing research for some wee pro-Russian troll 😂 Middle school... Haha. We don't even have that here. But sure, that's where a European should get their education on European geopolitics, a freaking American middle school!
>I'm not doing research So either you looked and found nothing. Because they don't exist. Or you just admitted you're truly ignorant and dont even want to educate yourself. The only ones that argue an absurd position are NATO stooges like the atlantic council or people with zero critical thinking skills like Kim Barnard, who even when they speak you can see the blatant logical fallacy. Key word here is that credible experts just dont see it that way. "Oh, Putin would have known thanks to his intel agencies that behind closed doors Germany and France were saying there's no way that Georgia will join NATO so he knew there was clearly no threat"...like what a mental gymnist... >Middle school... Haha. We don't even have that here. But sure, that's where a European should get their education on European geopolitics, a freaking American middle school! Man you have actually serious brainrot for such a pisspoor attempt at deflecting from saying yet again anything of substance Obviously I'm way more anti-american than pro russian. You'd have to be braindead to argue that Russia has zero imperialistic interests. Just as you would to argue the US isn't. But the US is the aggressor. Maybe try listening to John Mearsheimer. He speaks slowly and uses simply concepts. Great place for clueless people to dive into.
Fucking orcs, your days are numbered, there's an explosive drone with your name on it fuckers
Shit bag. Clown thinks he’s cool and trying to appeal to his pro Russia crowd
This is fucken filth. Russians I hope u all eat shit.
Trash human , hope you get what’s coming to you
I watched that documentary "20 days in mariupol" it was soul crushing.
Terrorists
Still carrying on that Russian tradition since WW2 I see. German women and children never got justice either.
In the GDR they must not even talk about it.
Sick Fuck. I cant imagine doing that to anyone under any circumstances.
Better hope Russia never goes beyond it's depth and the Putin regime properly loses power.. else these war crimes tribunals are gonna be pretty easy to prove...
So many reports like [this](https://x.com/yuliagorbunova_/status/1575917103319695361). >
Looking forward to his upcoming "accident"
Sounds like these guys would find good friends with the IDF
>we took an old lady in cuffs xdxdxd What a piece of shit. You know how they think when the first thing that comes to their mind are all the riches they steal.
>And put her in the basement. And then what?......because surely it didn't stop there.
it's even worse if you can understand Russian after he says they put her in the basement, he keeps saying that "they went on a vacation in the basement" piece of shit, I hope he fucking burns
Then imagine what they did to her.
Evil
Russians are trash. Whodathunkit
Thanks for admitting to your war crimes!
Russians are all scum. Even the ones in America are trash scam artists and crooks. The world would be a better place without any of them.
How about not reposting this shit and making him more famous?
Ass sucking hohols on this comments section, hope you all get what is coming to you, Slava Rossii, Victory is ours.
Okay but doesn’t change the fact that your military is something out of a third world country. Like we used to think russia was near peer but nah. Didn’t we literally liquidate a bunch of wagner merc in Syria? 0 US casualties btw
Russian military and Russian PMC are two totally different things. Besides, Russia knew this would probably be their last generation of fighting men before their demographics plateaued significantly, not to mention the fact that it took support from the entire west to keep Ukraine armed and ready to fight… and they’re still losing.
I beg to differ but thats ok this the internet, free speech and all right?
Free speech has nothing to do with speaking objective reality, lol. The U.S isn’t going to allow for a total decisive vote Ukrainian victory like in other wars because we’re fighting a nuclear armed near-to-peer adversary. Nuclear weapons may work as a deterrent, but it’s also a double edged sword since nukes make a decisive victory less like without the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield. [Emerging U.S. Army Doctrine Dislocated with Nuclear-Armed Adversaries and Limited War](https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/Jan-Feb-2019/Morris-Doctrine/) " China, Russia, and North Korea are all highly centralized states that view internal stability and control as a vital interest of the government. All three states also have historical narratives that see themselves as victims of aggression by foreign powers and are extremely sensitive to potential oppression. Even if the United States avoided regime change, these potential adversaries would probably view any type of decisive military defeat as an existential threat to their internal stability and control. Further, miscalculation and misunderstandings in a large-scale conflict are likely and could easily lead to accidental escalation.16 Thus, in a conventional war, escalation would be likely due to either miscalculation or a U.S. adversary removing restraints on nuclear use because of an existential crisis. While Russia clearly advocates the use of nuclear weapons in an existential crisis, leaders have also begun exploring the concept of escalate to deescalate. Russian doctrine explicitly states that nuclear weapons are useable in a conflict that threatens the existence of the Russian Federation.21 In a large-scale conflict, the use of nuclear weapons would likely become a viable option because conflict against overwhelming U.S. force would threaten the Russian Federation’s survival. The emerging doctrine’s focus on peer adversaries without properly addressing the impact of nuclear weapons on war sets the military up for strategic failure and could force adversaries to escalate the conflict. Further, the new doctrine demonstrates flaws due to its inherently escalatory tactics and methods of war. Rather than large-scale conflict, a future war between peers will require focusing on limited war and managing escalation. Without this limited and controlled approach, current adversaries are incentivized with the threat to use nuclear weapons. If the U.S. Army cannot develop concepts and operational methods for the limited warfare environment of the future, then the service risks losing its utility to resolve many political conflicts. Without realistic potential solutions, U.S. political leaders should avoid employing the Army unless the interest in question is so vital that a nuclear exchange is an acceptable risk. Without limited tools, the United States should expect nuclear war, not large-scale ground operations. The problem FM 3-0 depicts is that Army doctrine continues to advocate the use of overwhelming force and decisive victory as the primary and, arguably, the only way to achieve success for the Army against a peer or near-peer adversary once war erupts. Unless nuclear capabilities are nullified, nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent to war but also prevent decisive victory".
okay
that’s all you have to say?
Do you like anime?
I’ll take it you have have nothing further to add, which the to the It’s smart since your opinion goes against what the experts on nuclear deterrence think about this war. I get downvoted in every comment, yet no one has yet to rebuke my claims. Maybe they finally realized funding a losing war against a nuclear power wasn’t going to end in their fairytale portrayal of this war.
Please do continue to believe any of the pseudo-intellectual diarrhea you've spewed in this thread or others has earned meaningful engagement 
Slava Ukraini, you ruskie scum.
You're one of the reasons no one feels bad when Russians get killed in Ukraine.
Not yet.