30 Mar 22
2 edits
@metal-brain said
https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-is-succeeding-wildly-in-its-objectives-scott-ritter-on-the-war-in-ukraine/5775864
The last time you were on the show, about a month before Russia authorized a military incursion into Ukraine you mentioned that if it did happen it would not be trying to occupy the country. It would be in your words “lancing the boil.” An attempt to demilitarize and destroy Ukraine as a modern nation-state.
Not occupying, but destroying. That's what you keep denying is happening. The Russians are just destroying the country and then denying it and you defend them...but then you post this?
They are advancing at a rate faster than the German army advanced during the Blitzkrieg of World War II
No they aren't.
About Scott Ritter, the person being interviewed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
Scott Ritter currently writes op-eds for Russia-state-controlled media, Russia Today RT. [5] on issues pertaining to international security, military affairs, Russia, and the Middle East, as well as arms control and nonproliferation.
Ritter is a registered sex offender, having been convicted of unlawful contact with a minor and five other charges in a 2011 trial.
30 Mar 22
@athousandyoung saidThat youtube video doesn't prove me wrong at all. Russia has taken many square miles of territory. Ukraine is a big country.The last time you were on the show, about a month before Russia authorized a military incursion into Ukraine you mentioned that if it did happen it would not be trying to occupy the country. It would be in your words “lancing the boil.” An attempt to demilitarize and destroy Ukraine as a modern nation-state.
Not occupying, but destroying. That's wha ...[text shortened]... ving been convicted of unlawful contact with a minor and five other charges in a 2011 trial.[/quote]
You are also attacking Ritter's character rather than his assertions. That doesn't make him any less credible. You must be really desperate.
30 Mar 22
2 edits
@metal-brain saidThe Nazis took far more of Ukraine much faster.
That youtube video doesn't prove me wrong at all. Russia has taken many square miles of territory. Ukraine is a big country.
You are also attacking Ritter's character rather than his assertions. That doesn't make him any less credible. You must be really desperate.
@athousandyoung saidSource?
The Nazis took far more of Ukraine much faster.
You are attacking Ritter's character rather than his assertions. That doesn't make him any less credible. You must be really desperate.
30 Mar 22
1 edit
I just gave you the source - the Binkov video. You have serious troubles understanding sources. This isn't the first time.
As Binkov points out at 2:59 in the video:
German advance was initially extremely quick. At some parts of the front German units went over 200 miles into Soviet territory within a week...
Of course as we all know despite this much quicker initial advance Germany lost in the end.
The Russians took ~150 miles in 2 weeks, as can be seen in the video from 0:10-1:00.
I'm "attacking" your source of information.
30 Mar 22
@athousandyoung said150 miles or 150 square miles?
I just gave you the source - the Binkov video. You have serious troubles understanding sources. This isn't the first time.
As Binkov points out at 2:59 in the video:
[quote]German advance was initially extremely quick. At some parts of the front German units went over 200 miles into Soviet territory within a week...
Of course as we all know despite this muc ...[text shortened]... 2 weeks, as can be seen in the video from 0:10-1:00.
I'm "attacking" your source of information.
30 Mar 22
150 miles along narrow corridors towards a couple cities such as Kiev, without filling in the area between the various fronts, for the Russians. The map is pretty easy to read, no need to ask me. The Russian advance is mapped at 0:57 in the video and you can see how it's kind of advancing sideways along the border in several separate fronts that are not supporting one another.
The German map at 3:10 shows how they sent in two broad army groups that met at Minsk and then quickly filled in the area between until they held a full 200 miles deep of united, controlled territory with only one direction facing the enemy.
Of course you seem incapable of comprehending what sources actually say so I will never convince you but hopefully these posts will help limit the damage you do as an unwitting Russian propagandist.
30 Mar 22
@athousandyoung saidSquare miles is relevant. Use square miles or admit you are wrong. Your video is bunk.
150 miles along narrow corridors towards a couple cities such as Kiev, without filling in the area between the various fronts, for the Russians. The map is pretty easy to read, no need to ask me. The Russian advance is mapped at 0:57 in the video and you can see how it's kind of advancing sideways along the border in several separate fronts that are not supporting on ...[text shortened]... ou but hopefully these posts will help limit the damage you do as an unwitting Russian propagandist.
@metal-brain saidLearn to read a map.
Square miles is relevant. Use square miles or admit you are wrong. Your video is bunk.
30 Mar 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidMisrepresenting me again I’ve addressed the Serbian bombing numerous times I’ve also made it clear I believe it to be one of the rare clearly positive moves by nato in recent years given it was carried out to put an end to rife ethnic cleansing and extermination camps by Serbian / Serbia backed regular and irregular forces. The UN and The Hague saw it the same way but hey what do we know.
It's a direct answer to the question you asked in the last sentence of your prior post:
kev: Does any of this playbook look familiar.
I don't think I "misrepresented" anything. You never seem to address the 1998 NATO bombing of Serbia but I'm sure the "G" word can be conveniently used there as well.
In truth, most of these disputes stem from the breakup of States ...[text shortened]... But that is a little too nuanced an assessment to fit your "white hat, black hat" view of the world.
30 Mar 22
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidNo, they didn't. You keep confusing the 1994 campaign with the 1998 one. IMO, neither was justified, but the second one - who's aim it was to detach Kosovo - was not backed by the UN. And the Hague did not "see it the same way" as your one sided view; it prosecuted individuals on both sides.
Misrepresenting me again I’ve addressed the Serbian bombing numerous times I’ve also made it clear I believe it to be one of the rare clearly positive moves by nato in recent years given it was carried out to put an end to rife ethnic cleansing and extermination camps by Serbian / Serbia backed regular and irregular forces. The UN and The Hague saw it the same way but hey what do we know.
30 Mar 22
@athousandyoung saidSo you don't want to use square miles to prove it. Why is that?
Learn to read a map.
Won't square miles prove your point? Aaaaw...too bad.
30 Mar 22
3 edits
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-isnt-naive-zelenskiy-says-after-russia-pledges-scale-down-attack-kyiv-2022-03-30/
The Big Arrow War: Understanding Russian strategy and news that they will divert military away from Kiev
Russia bombs Ukraine cities, despite pledge to pull back from Kyiv
Russian forces bombarded a besieged city in northern Ukraine on Wednesday, a day after promising to scale down operations there, and Kyiv and its Western allies dismissed a pullback near the capital as a ploy to regroup by invaders taking heavy losses.