Russia - General Discussion.

[personaldesas]

Would it not be convenient for Ukraine to acquire them

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.

and how difficult can it be for them to acquire the production capability to produce them domestically, as they have in the past?

The core design, engineering, and assembly of Soviet nuclear weapons were overwhelmingly done in the Russian part of the Soviet Union, not in Ukraine.

 

[Feanor]

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine was in, in the '90s. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

 

[John Fedup]

Giving them up was likely one of the biggest strategic mistakes Ukraine has made in recent history.



The core design, engineering, and assembly of Soviet nuclear weapons were overwhelmingly done in the Russian part of the Soviet Union, not in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the nukes were in Ukraine when the USSR went tits up. Ukraine didn’t get much compensation from to West by returning them IIRC. Had they kept them…things would be different IMHO.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine was in, in the '90s. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

True and it made sense then assuming Russia would morph into the state the West hoped for. Putin ended that fantasy.

 

[Feanor]

Nevertheless, the nukes were in Ukraine when the USSR went tits up. Ukraine didn’t get much compensation from to West by returning them IIRC. Had they kept them…things would be different IMHO.

It was a messy situation on multiple counts. Remember, the Soviet Black Sea Fleet refused to take orders from Ukraine, and iirc it had it's own nuclear weapons. There was also a potential secessionist crisis with Crimea back then, and an ongoing war in Moldova. There was no real way that a Ukraine with a collapsing state socialist economy suddenly turned capitalist was going to be in a position to tell both the west and Russia to kick rocks at the same time.

Personally I don't think the situation would be very different. I think there's no way Ukraine could keep the bombers flying or the ICBMs functioning. They're too complex and expensive. They could probably keep a small inventory of tactical nukes, but even there they'd be under continuous pressure from all parties to shrink or get rid of that arsenal. And they didn't really have the means to make more. It's very likely that even if Ukraine initially didn't give them up, they would have disposed of most of them over time, possibly all of them.

 

[KipPotapych]

I don't think there was any realistic chance of Ukraine keeping a nuclear arsenal. You have to consider the situation and shape Ukraine has been in ever since the Soviet collapse. And you have to consider who wanted Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) to give up their nuclear arsenals.

I’d put it this way myself.

 

[John Fedup]

It was a messy situation on multiple counts. Remember, the Soviet Black Sea Fleet refused to take orders from Ukraine, and iirc it had it's own nuclear weapons. There was also a potential secessionist crisis with Crimea back then, and an ongoing war in Moldova. There was no real way that a Ukraine with a collapsing state socialist economy suddenly turned capitalist was going to be in a position to tell both the west and Russia to kick rocks at the same time.

Personally I don't think the situation would be very different. I think there's no way Ukraine could keep the bombers flying or the ICBMs functioning. They're too complex and expensive. They could probably keep a small inventory of tactical nukes, but even there they'd be under continuous pressure from all parties to shrink or get rid of that arsenal. And they didn't really have the means to make more. It's very likely that even if Ukraine initially didn't give them up, they would have disposed of most of them over time, possibly all of them.

I guess the other consideration would have been how good was the Soviet inventory control? Even keeping a few, would anyone really know? I vaguely recall the suitcase nukes fear which perhaps never existed.

 

[Feanor]

I guess the other consideration would have been how good was the Soviet inventory control? Even keeping a few, would anyone really know? I vaguely recall the suitcase nukes fear which perhaps never existed.

Good question. I guess if the Ukrainian state was hell bent on hanging on to a few they probably could have secreted them away. The problem is Ukraine went through a series of presidents with different views and different affiliations. Ukraine has a lot of Russian intelligence active there too and has had since independence. I suspect Russia would know, possibly western partners too. I'm just not sure what good they would have done in '14, or now. A handful of tactical nukes isn't enough to defeat Russia, but might be enough to get Russia to respond in kind but x 10. And what could they reliably hit? Ukrainian UAVs get through Russian air defenses in general. But the odds of any particular inbound are low. Russia shoots down most of them, sometimes all of them. So you'd have to scatter the nukes among a large wave of inbounds and hope something gets through, and then what?

 

[Ikimieli]

Is not the whole purpose of acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction while being Russias neighbor to act as a Deterrence ?

To make the use more costly for Russia rather than "If they launch Nuclear Weapons to Russia we will respond 10x". The only one who might seriously considers using them seems to be Russia, and all the rest seem to want them as response for that.

Also, Russian stance to whole thing is very aggressive. They do not build defence, they only build more capabilities to attack and emphasis on "mutual destruction" type of scenarios, and even on those, they do not make shelters or precautions for their people as other countries do.

The whole idea seems to be, that no one would dare, we are the only ones who threaten with it, and would it come to that, we have not used resources to defend, because we only attack. And then when someone tries to defend they turn it so that it is a supposed aggression against them which somehow justifies their own aggression now. So you cannot defend, you need only to surrender. And if you defend, it is aggression which justifies the attack. Something like this ?

For example, if you compare with US, they build defence like crazy, and its one of their most important focus points.

Soviet and US had some kind of agreement in the past, cold war era, that each can have only was it one or two anti ICBM systems to ensure mutual destruction only protecting the capital area and was it one military site. US broke the agreement and started to build more, and have now the Aegis and SM-3 systems. Soviet, and Russia never built more and the ones near Moscow is probably more than 50 years old and they only build attack capabilities, which are very fearsome, but they do not build defense ?

Is it like this ?

The idea on US on this kind of setup seems to be, that if someone launch against them, they will shoot them down and respond.

Russia idea seems to be, that if someone shoots they dont shoot them down and respond 10x.

Or, if someone even say that they acquire this capability they take it as aggression, and somehow turn it that now they are being attacked, and they are the ones who need to respond ? (Even no one would want them or think they need them, if Russia would not threaten them making direct and official threats with such).

So basically, every single neighbor Russia have, they all should acquire them to act as deterrence ?

You can never know. Putin seems very reasonable on comparison, but everyone knows that Medvedev is crazy. The moment he gains more influence you can never know what will happen. People have been accustomed to Putin, but once the power changes, what then ?

As far as i understand. For example in Finlands point of view. Finnish President at that time (Sauli Niinistö) asked him directly in 2022 do we have military threat from Russia against Finland. He gave direct answer that no. But then someone else comes, what then ?

And as a strange side note, he used some time in that same call to read poems to Putin. Does that act as a deterrence ?

And then afterwards, he went to Ukraine and said openly on press conference with Zelenskyi that "lets keep the eyes on the ball". Which clearly perplexed Zelenskyi by no small amount.

Also. Russia was informed more than half year before Finland joined NATO that Finland and Sweden is planning to do so, and they did nothing to stop that. They could have, but they did not.

And even they would only attack with conventional means, they do use Nuclear Threat as a leverage to pressure the opponent. And if you lack this capability, the pressure is felt more. You need this, even you do not plan to use it. It is a psychological factor.

The reasoning for Ukraine to have them, is psychological. That they would know that they could respond. The reason is not to attack Russia, but to make their leverage not as strong.

It affects behaviour, when they threaten and you do not have it yourself.

Shooting them down with things like S-400 or S-500 might not help. They will explode and the fallout will spread on your own area, carried by the wind. You need to be able to shoot them in space. And even that i suppose, have some kind of effect on the international satellite network.

I do not know, but it seems that Russian people have lack of respect on Ukrainian people or something like this. And then Ukrainians need to win that respect on the battlefield to be taken seriously. Having that Nuclear Deterrence would help in that too ? So that Russians would start to take them seriously ?

So yes, i think they should definetely acquire them. And everyone else should too.

 

[John Fedup]

So yes, i think they should definetely acquire them. And everyone else should too.

The problem with "everyone" is some of them think 72 virgins are waiting for them when they blow themselves and all those around them to hell, hence no deterrent value against such feeble-minded fools.

 

[Ikimieli]

No, their leadership is not the ones doing that. They are the ones telling them.

The one you need to deter is their governace.

 

[Feanor]

Is not the whole purpose of acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction while being Russias neighbor to act as a Deterrence ?

It's generally the purpose of all states. WMDs are largely seen as deterrence, especially when we're talking about strategic weapons, as opposed to tactical ones. The US nuclear arsenal is also about deterrence, as is the Russian one

To make the use more costly for Russia rather than "If they launch Nuclear Weapons to Russia we will respond 10x". The only one who might seriously considers using them seems to be Russia, and all the rest seem to want them as response for that.

Also, Russian stance to whole thing is very aggressive. They do not build defence, they only build more capabilities to attack and emphasis on "mutual destruction" type of scenarios, and even on those, they do not make shelters or precautions for their people as other countries do.

What a strange argument. The same weapon systems are used defensively and offensively. And defense isn't just about passively sitting there. But even if we want to look at the defensive side, Russia has a large and generally fairly robust civil defense infrastructure, a ground-based centric IADS that's probably the most robust in the world (and that's as close as you get to a purely "defensive" build-out), and generally has very limited force projection capability. Russia's political stance is aggressive, but I don't think we can argue that Russia's military development is exclusively about aggression.

The whole idea seems to be, that no one would dare, we are the only ones who threaten with it, and would it come to that, we have not used resources to defend, because we only attack. And then when someone tries to defend they turn it so that it is a supposed aggression against them which somehow justifies their own aggression now. So you cannot defend, you need only to surrender. And if you defend, it is aggression which justifies the attack. Something like this ?

For example, if you compare with US, they build defence like crazy, and its one of their most important focus points.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Soviet and US had some kind of agreement in the past, cold war era, that each can have only was it one or two anti ICBM systems to ensure mutual destruction only protecting the capital area and was it one military site. US broke the agreement and started to build more, and have now the Aegis and SM-3 systems. Soviet, and Russia never built more and the ones near Moscow is probably more than 50 years old and they only build attack capabilities, which are very fearsome, but they do not build defense ?

The Aegis is a very expensive and high-end system that Russia can't really hope to match any time soon. But it doesn't mean Russia hasn't been working on BMD for the past 20 years. They have been. The A-135 around Moscow went through a major upgrade and overhaul, and the S-500 is now in service, presumably as some sort of analogue to the THAAD.

The idea on US on this kind of setup seems to be, that if someone launch against them, they will shoot them down and respond.

Russia idea seems to be, that if someone shoots they dont shoot them down and respond 10x.

I think it's a question of resources not priorities.

Or, if someone even say that they acquire this capability they take it as aggression, and somehow turn it that now they are being attacked, and they are the ones who need to respond ? (Even no one would want them or think they need them, if Russia would not threaten them making direct and official threats with such).

So basically, every single neighbor Russia have, they all should acquire them to act as deterrence ?

Many have pointed out that the difference between the DPRK and Iran is that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. So it's not just Russia's neighbors.

You can never know. Putin seems very reasonable on comparison, but everyone knows that Medvedev is crazy.

Is Medvedev crazy? Or is he playing a role? Back when he was president, he was seen as the conciliator, the pro-Western liberal. Isn't it interesting how after Zhirinovsky dies, someone else without any seeming real power, but in a high position within the political apparatus appears and starts making crazy and nationalistic statements? All that's missing is the alcoholism, and the penchant of populism. But the first is a personal choice, and the second is likely unnecessary since Medvedev isn't running an "opposition" party.

And even they would only attack with conventional means, they do use Nuclear Threat as a leverage to pressure the opponent. And if you lack this capability, the pressure is felt more. You need this, even you do not plan to use it. It is a psychological factor.

The reasoning for Ukraine to have them, is psychological. That they would know that they could respond. The reason is not to attack Russia, but to make their leverage not as strong.

It affects behaviour, when they threaten and you do not have it yourself.

So it is defensive to have nuclear weapons? Why doesn't Ukraine just develop Aegis and shoot down Russian nukes?

Shooting them down with things like S-400 or S-500 might not help. They will explode and the fallout will spread on your own area, carried by the wind. You need to be able to shoot them in space. And even that i suppose, have some kind of effect on the international satellite network.

You need to brush up on the 101 of nuclear weapons. There's tactical nukes and strategic weapons. There are different types of delivery platforms. I believe I discussed above what kinds of nuclear weapons are credible for Ukraine, with their resources, to be able to hold on to given recent history.

On a side note the fallout from actual nuclear weapons isn't as great, and if the weapons are tactical and few in number, it's a concern, but it's not apocalyptic by any means. Some mildly elevated radiation levels in the woods around Bryansk aren't good, but is it enough to get Russia to back off?

 

[Feanor]

Russia is apparently selling Tunguskas and S-400s to India. I have some questions, starting with why Tunguska and not Pantsyr-SV? It's a more modern execution on the same concept. Continuing, Russia has a shortage of SAM and GBAD in general, and yet will be exporting quantities? It's a strange looking deal.

bmpd

Правительство Индии сообщило, что 27 марта Совет по оборонным закупкам (Defence Acquisition Council - DAC), возглавляемый министром обороны Индии, утвердил новый пакет планируемых закупок для вооруженных сил Индии на общую сумму 238 тысяч кроров рупий (около 25 млрд долл). В том числе утверждена...

t.me

bmpd

Министерство обороны Индии сообщило, что 27 марта подписало с АО "Рособоронэкспорт" контракт стоимостью 445 кроров рупий (около 47 млн долл) на закупку партии самоходных зенитных ракетно-пушечных комплексов 2К22 «Тунгуска» для индийской армии. Контракт был подписан в Дели в присутствии...

t.me

 

[personaldesas]

Russia is apparently selling Tunguskas and S-400s to India. I have some questions, starting with why Tunguska and not Pantsyr-SV? It's a more modern execution on the same concept. Continuing, Russia has a shortage of SAM and GBAD in general, and yet will be exporting quantities? It's a strange looking deal.

Maybe the need for currency / partners outweighs the need for SAMs? No idea, just wildly guessing.

 

[Feanor]

Russia is apparently selling Tunguskas and S-400s to India. I have some questions, starting with why Tunguska and not Pantsyr-SV? It's a more modern execution on the same concept. Continuing, Russia has a shortage of SAM and GBAD in general, and yet will be exporting quantities? It's a strange looking deal.

bmpd

Правительство Индии сообщило, что 27 марта Совет по оборонным закупкам (Defence Acquisition Council - DAC), возглавляемый министром обороны Индии, утвердил новый пакет планируемых закупок для вооруженных сил Индии на общую сумму 238 тысяч кроров рупий (около 25 млрд долл). В том числе утверждена...

t.me

bmpd

Министерство обороны Индии сообщило, что 27 марта подписало с АО "Рособоронэкспорт" контракт стоимостью 445 кроров рупий (около 47 млн долл) на закупку партии самоходных зенитных ракетно-пушечных комплексов 2К22 «Тунгуска» для индийской армии. Контракт был подписан в Дели в присутствии...

t.me

Maybe the need for currency / partners outweighs the need for SAMs? No idea, just wildly guessing.

Apparently the Tunguska part is just for parts and munitions. This makes much more sense. I was skeptical the Tunguska production lines are still even extant. Though again they're sufficiently similar to the Pantsyr-SV...

bmpd

По информации, полученной из российских источников, подписанный министерством обороны Индии 27 марта контракт с АО "Рособоронэкспорт" стоимостью около 47 млн долл касается только поставки запасных частей и расходных материалов для ранее поставленных Индии самоходных зенитных ракетно-пушечных...

t.me

 

[Ikimieli]

Same than me, you seem to write from a certain perspective. Not all people might share that perspective. The ones who lead might look it a bit different. There is also way worse scenarios than what you come up with, and you really cannot know does it happen or not.

Even Medvedev would only play a role. The thing is he have an audience for it and they have a reason for someone to play this kind of role. That in itself is alarming and the moment your leader needs to play this role, then there you have it. Play or not, its still what it is.

And i do think Russia is directly aggressive with their nuclear arsenal.

The official Russian government statement have been to Finnish Prime Minister that "you can go in front of mirror and succumb to a nuclear fallout"

So how is this not aggressive ?

How it is defensive ?

Finland did not threaten Russia in official government statements.

They only gave a statement where they condemn the Russian attack on Ukraine. And on response of that they tell the Prime Minister to go "succumb on a nuclear fallout" at the same time, than directly threatening everyone with nuclear arsenal and reminding everyone they have them. And later that same Prime Minister did not participate on elections even she would have clearly won, and felt the need to escape the country instead and moved to UK.

The US does the same. They do threaten others with Nuclear Weapons, even directly stating it. Or at least their current President have a history for it. There have even been rumors that they had to make safety mechanisms on his last term, that he wont suddenly start launching nuclear weapons at random.

The US and Russian populace also seem to be very similar. They both like this. They like the military aggression, they like to conquer, and they like to intimidate others. So in a Democracy like Russia and US, you become a popular leader when you offer your people what they want. Aggression.

But like you say, or maybe meant ? When i comes to Weapons of Mass Destruction, the focus point in US and Russia seem different. Russia builds more attack arsenal, when US is focused more to defense. US is not as ready to trade than Russia, it seems. They want to make sure that if it comes to that, they are left untouched, and only the opposing side is annihilated when Russia seems to emphasis on aspects like "mutual destruction". Even the Russian games they make seem to portrait the nuclear war as so, that they get annihilated as well, but annihilate others more.

Then regarding Conventional inventory. US focuses a lot more on offensive capabilities while with weapons of mass destruction, they want to ensure the defense first.


In case of Finland. They have vast underground networks to store their people for prolonged times. Vast places, for tens or hundreds of thousands of people in underground vaults. They also upheld strategic reserves to stay there for long period of times and have constructed water, air filtering, electricity and similar infrasructure in there. In the past, they did not give construction permit if the construction dont have an underground vault, no matter how small building it is, for example a family home for one family. Then the areas they built were always full of locked metal doors that go inside solid rock. They do not do this anymore, but in the past, they did.

In Finlands case i suspect the place they would aim to threaten with this kind of exchange is St.Petersburg, which hold more people than entirety of Finland. So i do not think it seems that good of a trade on perspective of Russia, to even think of possibly trading St. Petersburg even to entirety of Finland, especially when most of the populace in the entire country have been transferred to filtered underground vaults ?


I really dont know what is up in Ukraine, or what they do. I just think they would need this kind of capability.

And of course, those countries that US threaten, would maybe really like to have them too ?

And then also, is there even a country that the US does not threaten ?

As anyone can understand, the number one threat to World Peace is of course the imperial ambitions of the United States, and you need the nuclear arsenal against them as well. And then Russia comes as good second.

Lets say for example, if you ask Danish people who they think as a bigger threat to Denmark. United States or Russia. I would put my money on them at least thinking of United States as the biggest threat on Danish sovereignity they have. Its not Russia threatening them actively, its actually United States even they are supposed to be "allies" but in reality, they are not. So why would Denmark need Nuclear Arsenal -> to deter US, not Russia.

But because of geographical reasons, the one Finland needs to deter more is Russia. Would Finland have territories near US, they would need to deter them, and their imperial ambitions. Would they have territories near China, they would need to deter them. But there seems to be always someone you need to deter. But China does have a land route to Finland trough Russia. So who knows, maybe Finland does need to deter China ?

Its a scary world suddenly, and the attack on Ukraine changed everything. Now people want to conquer, its an era of conquer we are living now and anyone with something worth conquering must be really alert.

The perspective suddenly shifts. "Why would we help those ones who they try to conquer. Why would we not use our resources to conquer something ourself ?" and yeah, lets do that. We want to conquer too.

But how i understand, Russia managed to make this shift. Now people suddenly want to become like them. There most likely is also people in Finland, who would want to conquer Russia. But they know they have not what it takes, so they keep their mouth shut. For example, they for certain would want Karelia and Viaborg. But they know they could not take them and would just lose. But would they be stronger than Russia, they would demand an attack.

So how i understand, Russia seems to be the coolest kid in town. And now suddenly everyone wants to be like them. Especially the US people. So they start to demand from their leadership to do as they do.

 

[Ikimieli]

So let me get this straight to you in here, if you do not understand what is happening around you. Or in your own country.

Russian Citizen = Is a subject of their capitalistic master, as in the Russian Far Right Capitalistic Government.

Russian Government = Is a capitalistic subject of their capitalistic master, as in the Government of the United States.

This is where you have come to. While the Soviet Union was a respected peer adversary of the United States and a counter balance in the world for capitalist ideologies.

The moment you run out of money, your society stops, your war stops. The moment you run out of money, you can have no more soldiers to fight for Russia anymore because money is the only way you get them to fight for you. Is it really like this ? I suppose it is. Every indicator is pointing to this direction. And when you run out of money, your industry stops. And then, you need to seek for foreign creditors, and become heavily indebted and sell your country to foreign interests. As you have already done so. And then, you will give them your resources as a payment for this "money" that you need to "run your factories", "gain more military equipment" and "gain more soldiers".

Because everything that happens in Russia, is resolved around money in a capitalistic system that you have. And, is controlled in the United States.

And if you are a Communist or Socialist in Russia, your Capitalistic Government will suppress you for their capitalistic masters in the US, so that the Russia would stay as capitalist area inside the capitalist hegemony. And no one can have any other ideas than capitalism which they enforce on your population.

Its a bad time to have Communist or Socialistic ideology in Russia. You will most likely be killed as political opposition if you start to somehow become politically active. Because the only accepted stance in Russian society is Capitalism, other political agendas like Socialism and Communism, punishable by death.

Without any relation to Russia - Ukraine war. No matter what happens. You WILL end up working for the United States. And your resources exist to make them, not Russia rich. The only portion of Russia that will gain advantage on this is your corrupt aristocracy, which gain benefit for serving their capitalistic masters and robbing their own nation on behalf of their capitalistic masters.

Just you see. You will be making the mineral deals with the US, and all other kind of deals. And your citizens will mine your resources for them while themself living from hand to mouth. Your government will arrange you this, and nothing more. And will enslave you, on the throne of capitalism.

Sorry to say this, but your Government sold your country long time ago. But your citizens just dont understand this fact. And you cannot change it back. Your aristocracy is too involved in their personal capitalism, that they too leech on the capitalistic system. As in, they leech on their own citizens. Their own well being is the most important after all. Not that different than lets say, for example Finland. Which have this same setup, and serve their Capitalistic Masters as well. Everyone is in this same mess, even China. And it is controlled by the Western World, which is then controlled by the United States.

There is no actual difference between Russia and Finland. We both have a capitalistic government and serve the Head Capitalists and their interests. And Finland too, will renounce their national resources, and hand them over for their capitalistic masters. And have as well, betrayed their own people for their own personal greed. You think they are Finnish companies that are mining in there ? No, they are foreign companies that make us mine for them, and sell our resources for us. And then give a slice of it for the corrupt aristocracy.

I do not know Russian history that well. But there have been some revolutions, probably around this subject. I remember word Bolsevik or something like that. I dont know did they lose or win, or what they wanted. In Finland, capitalists are a majority. And have managed to corrupt the whole nation. It is like a disease, that spreads and infects people. Capitalism, that is. And their individual wealth is built upon the sacrifices of the common people.

The purpose of the United States have for long now been this so called "Manifest Destiny". A destiny so called to be inherited from divine aspects, to make them the only rightful ruler of the world, that should turn everyone to their own system. By will or by force. And then rule it on a divine degree.

The China however, have their own version of similar thought process. I dont know really, but it went on somehow like this that "China is the divine portal to the heavenly heights, and the only nation that can rule the world and lead them to eternal bliss" or something like this. Meaning, they are bestowed by divine right, to rule over humanity. Which contradicts quite much with the US Manifest Destiny agenda.

In all actuality, the US inherited this Manifest Destiny from the European colonial era. But the US is still going for it, and never let it go. The idea was, that when Europeans conquered America, they did by with "Divine Right". Which the US still continue to upheld, and have enlargened their claim for the whole world, when the original idea was only to conquer American continent for European colonial masters.

Capitalism is really an extension of Colonialism. Its not much more than that.

As far as the Russian Ukraine, or any war goes. How the US Manifest Destiny sees this thing is, that the strongest one who could conquer, or enslave the other have divine right, and was granted this power by the will of god. And the losing or vanquished side did so, because god was willing and the reason that they could not defend them self is a clear sign from the god that what they did is just. So when you enslave someone, or do whatever you want to them as the strongest party. It is the gods will upon earth, and you are the manifest of divine power doing that. It is as they call it, your destiny.

The original Manifest Destiny entails military aggression, that you need to attack and conquer to "save" people from themself by making them your subjects. But there was political movement to oppose this, and they then invented capitalism to conquer the world in soft method. Control them with a rigged monetary system that they control. And now their current administration, these Rebublicans like more about this original version. That you attack and take what you can, because that is your divine aspect on earth, and the gods will. They are Christian people. But they believe that killing other people, even bible says not to kill, is divine. And that they will go to heaven, for killing innocents because they are the divine aspect on earth. Its basically insanity. They do not seek Mercy or Love from god. The only thing they seek from god is Power. And that power is to be used to enslave others.

So, if Russia conquer Donbas, it is divine, and gods manifest on earth. If Ukraine reconquers it, its the same. So basically no matter what you do in your life it is always divine, and you will always go to heaven no matter what. Because everything you do is your: Manifest Destiny. And the power to succeed in it comes straight from the god.

This was originally invented to mess with the minds of the American Natives, and to justify the pillage and conquer of their territories.

It is really something, if someone believes in this for real.

The things that Russian Government and Media say are quite absurd. But even they are not this absurd. And for certain, do not believe on their own lies. To do so would be insane.

Dostojevski, Tolstoi, Tsaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev.

Why does your society not produce more master class people like this anymore ?

And as far as i have researched, all your designs are either soviet era, or then started to be developed in soviet era and most of the designs that you start never reach completion, and those that do are old soviet concepts.

It really seems, like your whole culture, people, and nation is in decline, and have been for long time now. Is art even appreciated in Russia anymore ?

Where are your top class scientists, artists ? What happened ?

Have capitalism served you well ? To pursue only petty, material gains and forsake your very soul.

BEWARE! The Red Tide will RIIIISE in the Heart of Europe. And wash over capitalism to be purged in FLAMES!

 

[Feanor]

So let me get this straight to you in here, if you do not understand what is happening around you. Or in your own country.

Russian Citizen = Is a subject of their capitalistic master, as in the Russian Far Right Capitalistic Government.

Russian Government = Is a capitalistic subject of their capitalistic master, as in the Government of the United States.

This is where you have come to. While the Soviet Union was a respected peer adversary of the United States and a counter balance in the world for capitalist ideologies.

The moment you run out of money, your society stops, your war stops. The moment you run out of money, you can have no more soldiers to fight for Russia anymore because money is the only way you get them to fight for you. Is it really like this ? I suppose it is. Every indicator is pointing to this direction. And when you run out of money, your industry stops. And then, you need to seek for foreign creditors, and become heavily indebted and sell your country to foreign interests. As you have already done so. And then, you will give them your resources as a payment for this "money" that you need to "run your factories", "gain more military equipment" and "gain more soldiers".

Because everything that happens in Russia, is resolved around money in a capitalistic system that you have. And, is controlled in the United States.

And if you are a Communist or Socialist in Russia, your Capitalistic Government will suppress you for their capitalistic masters in the US, so that the Russia would stay as capitalist area inside the capitalist hegemony. And no one can have any other ideas than capitalism which they enforce on your population.

Its a bad time to have Communist or Socialistic ideology in Russia. You will most likely be killed as political opposition if you start to somehow become politically active. Because the only accepted stance in Russian society is Capitalism, other political agendas like Socialism and Communism, punishable by death.

Without any relation to Russia - Ukraine war. No matter what happens. You WILL end up working for the United States. And your resources exist to make them, not Russia rich. The only portion of Russia that will gain advantage on this is your corrupt aristocracy, which gain benefit for serving their capitalistic masters and robbing their own nation on behalf of their capitalistic masters.

Just you see. You will be making the mineral deals with the US, and all other kind of deals. And your citizens will mine your resources for them while themself living from hand to mouth. Your government will arrange you this, and nothing more. And will enslave you, on the throne of capitalism.

Sorry to say this, but your Government sold your country long time ago. But your citizens just dont understand this fact. And you cannot change it back. Your aristocracy is too involved in their personal capitalism, that they too leech on the capitalistic system. As in, they leech on their own citizens. Their own well being is the most important after all. Not that different than lets say, for example Finland. Which have this same setup, and serve their Capitalistic Masters as well. Everyone is in this same mess, even China. And it is controlled by the Western World, which is then controlled by the United States.

There is no actual difference between Russia and Finland. We both have a capitalistic government and serve the Head Capitalists and their interests. And Finland too, will renounce their national resources, and hand them over for their capitalistic masters. And have as well, betrayed their own people for their own personal greed. You think they are Finnish companies that are mining in there ? No, they are foreign companies that make us mine for them, and sell our resources for us. And then give a slice of it for the corrupt aristocracy.

I do not know Russian history that well. But there have been some revolutions, probably around this subject. I remember word Bolsevik or something like that. I dont know did they lose or win, or what they wanted. In Finland, capitalists are a majority. And have managed to corrupt the whole nation. It is like a disease, that spreads and infects people. Capitalism, that is. And their individual wealth is built upon the sacrifices of the common people.

The purpose of the United States have for long now been this so called "Manifest Destiny". A destiny so called to be inherited from divine aspects, to make them the only rightful ruler of the world, that should turn everyone to their own system. By will or by force. And then rule it on a divine degree.

The China however, have their own version of similar thought process. I dont know really, but it went on somehow like this that "China is the divine portal to the heavenly heights, and the only nation that can rule the world and lead them to eternal bliss" or something like this. Meaning, they are bestowed by divine right, to rule over humanity. Which contradicts quite much with the US Manifest Destiny agenda.

In all actuality, the US inherited this Manifest Destiny from the European colonial era. But the US is still going for it, and never let it go. The idea was, that when Europeans conquered America, they did by with "Divine Right". Which the US still continue to upheld, and have enlargened their claim for the whole world, when the original idea was only to conquer American continent for European colonial masters.

Capitalism is really an extension of Colonialism. Its not much more than that.

As far as the Russian Ukraine, or any war goes. How the US Manifest Destiny sees this thing is, that the strongest one who could conquer, or enslave the other have divine right, and was granted this power by the will of god. And the losing or vanquished side did so, because god was willing and the reason that they could not defend them self is a clear sign from the god that what they did is just. So when you enslave someone, or do whatever you want to them as the strongest party. It is the gods will upon earth, and you are the manifest of divine power doing that. It is as they call it, your destiny.

The original Manifest Destiny entails military aggression, that you need to attack and conquer to "save" people from themself by making them your subjects. But there was political movement to oppose this, and they then invented capitalism to conquer the world in soft method. Control them with a rigged monetary system that they control. And now their current administration, these Rebublicans like more about this original version. That you attack and take what you can, because that is your divine aspect on earth, and the gods will. They are Christian people. But they believe that killing other people, even bible says not to kill, is divine. And that they will go to heaven, for killing innocents because they are the divine aspect on earth. Its basically insanity. They do not seek Mercy or Love from god. The only thing they seek from god is Power. And that power is to be used to enslave others.

So, if Russia conquer Donbas, it is divine, and gods manifest on earth. If Ukraine reconquers it, its the same. So basically no matter what you do in your life it is always divine, and you will always go to heaven no matter what. Because everything you do is your: Manifest Destiny. And the power to succeed in it comes straight from the god.

This was originally invented to mess with the minds of the American Natives, and to justify the pillage and conquer of their territories.

It is really something, if someone believes in this for real.

The things that Russian Government and Media say are quite absurd. But even they are not this absurd. And for certain, do not believe on their own lies. To do so would be insane.

Dostojevski, Tolstoi, Tsaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev.

Why does your society not produce more master class people like this anymore ?

And as far as i have researched, all your designs are either soviet era, or then started to be developed in soviet era and most of the designs that you start never reach completion, and those that do are old soviet concepts.

It really seems, like your whole culture, people, and nation is in decline, and have been for long time now. Is art even appreciated in Russia anymore ?

Where are your top class scientists, artists ? What happened ?

Have capitalism served you well ? To pursue only petty, material gains and forsake your very soul.

BEWARE! The Red Tide will RIIIISE in the Heart of Europe. And wash over capitalism to be purged in FLAMES!

Who are you addressing? Besides this being rambling nonsense, who is this aimed at?

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Who are you addressing? Besides this being rambling nonsense, who is this aimed at?

It is almost like someone on drugs discovers a new AI-translation program on his computer and decided to test it out on Defencetalk.

 

[Ikimieli]

I am addressing all the good folk in the Russian Federation who still lives there.

Move away now while you still have the chance.

Your country is going to be conquered. They are crazy. They are planning an invasion.

They have more money than you do. And you cannot defend your country. It is not possible, the enemy is too strong.

If you are a decend person and do not have a criminal record, you can come here in Finland. We have Anatoli there in the bike workshop and he likes it good. And Vlada found love in here.

Or then, i can suggest China. They will not attack there.

Its not long after the civilian life in Russia will end permanently, and after they declare Martial Law, you cannot leave anymore.

Leave while you can! Only then, can you be saved. Sell everything, take your loved ones and find a new life elsewhere!

Only then, after the war have ended. You may be safe there.

Your soldiers are dying by the hundreds of thousands, the conflict is only escalating, your industry will be destroyed, your economy will be crippled. And then, you will be invaded. You cannot stop this, the tides are turning. Leave while you can!