The bombers struck by Ukraine were strategic long range aircraft. None of these aircraft were used to bomb Ukraine, certainly not “daily” as you report. The destruction of these bombers will have zero effect on the military actions in the eastern Ukraine region.
Doesn't really seem relevant to the content of this blog post.
That said, is your position "destroying a set of planes has no effect on the ability to use those planes"? Do you think the planes were just not being used at all? Even if they weren't being used, the fact that Ukraine was able to secretly bomb anything that deep into Russian territory will slow down Russian logistics purely from the additional security requirements
Destroying these craft would certainly be considered a blow to Soviet long range attack capabilities and was a brilliant operation in its simplicity and effectiveness but No, I don’t see how this will affect the long term war effort in eastern Ukraine.
ok, thanks, I appreciate the clarity. I don't really have enough background to make a claim about whether or not this will affect the long term war effort. What I've read is that the Ukrainians managed to take out several spy planes that are difficult for Russia to recreate, in addition to taking out bombers. My understanding is that the bombers were being used to shell Ukranian cities, but IDK for sure. Re the spy planes, I could see the reduction of intel capacity giving more opportunities for Ukraine to do things while under cover of the fog of war. But again, idk. Wars like this one seem to be more like wars of morale than of resources. Reminding Russians of their personal risk certainly hurts Russian morale and willingness to keep fighting.
It appears that the action on the front lines of this conflict has become a battle of the drones. Instead of large movements of troops and vehicles (which are sitting ducks for attack drones) there seems to be a stalemate characterized by heavy losses on both sides. Instead this war of attrition, Ukraine will run out of available bodies first.
That’s a very complicated and oblique way of saying: “I need to study this situation a lot more.”
My advice would be to begin by recalling the nearly finalized agreement which was scuttled by Biden and Boris Johnson. Zelensky could have ignored the advice of these two puppet masters, and that would have been that. Using that as a baseline, play out the next three years, and try to accept that, just as with the invasion of Iraq, the US is not interested in peace. It is interested in war. That’s something even a five year old can see. And Zelensky is maybe more comfortable with that age group, his experience as a ‘Penisist’ being not quite the right background for dealing with a former head of the KGB.
> If your 5yo saw someone beating up her friend, and you told her something like "don't worry, little Timmy had it coming for trying to make new friends, and honestly if he just took the punches quietly the beating would end sooner", you may think you're being really smart, that you've found some edge case that makes up down. But the kid would instinctively know that you're wrong. The kid would help their friend.
Of course he rejects it. It makes him look like a fool. But there were reliable witnesses, backed by physical evidence, and who would invent a story which makes no one look good? One thing that even their adversaries concede regarding Russians is that they do not bluff, and tend not to lie. Kennedy discovered this the hard way in his negotiations with Kruschov. And Zelensky is not reliable for three reasons: He is perpetually threatened by his own people, (the Nazis who tell him what to do); he is losing the war badly and needs to save face; and he’s not very bright.
Either you are downstream of Russian propaganda, or you *are* Russian propaganda.
Just to be clear, nothing you say here has anything to do with the point of this blog post, which is: Russia is invading Ukraine, not the other way around, and Russia could stop the war today if they wanted to. Zelensky could be the least bright person on the planet (by all accounts, he seems quite capable and smart), and it would not make a difference at all to the crux of what I'm saying. There could have been twenty different peace deals that have all been refused, and it would not make a difference at all to the crux of what I'm saying.
You are like the teacher who, seeing a teen punch a 5yo, yells at the 5yo for hurting the teen's fist. "Well, little Timmy, maybe you shouldnt have been so punchable"
I'm sorry you disagreed with my framing of your position. You can definitely attempt to correct my misunderstanding. But otherwise, what's that old saying? This isn't an airport, you dont have to announce your departure 😂
What is your actual argument? Do you have one? Or did you just come here to fling shit? If the latter, I'm just going to ban you for 30 days.
Also, you clearly didn't get the point of the post (or...like...read it...) since the whole point is that the 5 year old has better ethical clarity than all of the people who gigabrain themselves into believing Putin's bullshit. Such as yourself.
What exactly are you arguing? Like, if you just came here to insult me, let me know and I can block you and we can skip the insults and save everyone time. Alternatively, if you have an actual position you want to stake out, feel free
> But you won me over
I'm glad that my writing resonated! 😇 please subscribe if you liked it!
> Those of us that are frustrated with Ukraine and the blank-check that we've granted them, both metaphorically and literally, aren't necessarily saying Russia is in the right.
But there are many people who explicitly argue that Russia is in the right! There are people going around talking about how Russia is "just trying to protect innocent civilians from the neo-nazi Ukranians" or "Russia is just trying to protect its borders from the evil encroaching NATO"!
You may not fall into that camp, in which case this post may not be *about* you.
To respond to the first two points: I think you are actually reasoning yourself into a pit. When you say something like "look at the decades of history" you are, imo, pulling in information that is not relevant. The reason a 5yo could rationalize this is because it really is that simple: Russia attacked Ukraine, and Russia could stop attacking Ukraine tomorrow. What, exactly, do you think is complicating this situation?
For what it's worth, I think the 5yo would correctly adjudicate that situation too! Though, generally, having other friends isn't seen as berating and insulting someone.
Is your take that Ukraine (and NATO) have been somehow threatening Russia historically? Why do you believe this / what specifically has Ukraine (and NATO) done?
The bombers struck by Ukraine were strategic long range aircraft. None of these aircraft were used to bomb Ukraine, certainly not “daily” as you report. The destruction of these bombers will have zero effect on the military actions in the eastern Ukraine region.
Doesn't really seem relevant to the content of this blog post.
That said, is your position "destroying a set of planes has no effect on the ability to use those planes"? Do you think the planes were just not being used at all? Even if they weren't being used, the fact that Ukraine was able to secretly bomb anything that deep into Russian territory will slow down Russian logistics purely from the additional security requirements
Destroying these craft would certainly be considered a blow to Soviet long range attack capabilities and was a brilliant operation in its simplicity and effectiveness but No, I don’t see how this will affect the long term war effort in eastern Ukraine.
ok, thanks, I appreciate the clarity. I don't really have enough background to make a claim about whether or not this will affect the long term war effort. What I've read is that the Ukrainians managed to take out several spy planes that are difficult for Russia to recreate, in addition to taking out bombers. My understanding is that the bombers were being used to shell Ukranian cities, but IDK for sure. Re the spy planes, I could see the reduction of intel capacity giving more opportunities for Ukraine to do things while under cover of the fog of war. But again, idk. Wars like this one seem to be more like wars of morale than of resources. Reminding Russians of their personal risk certainly hurts Russian morale and willingness to keep fighting.
It appears that the action on the front lines of this conflict has become a battle of the drones. Instead of large movements of troops and vehicles (which are sitting ducks for attack drones) there seems to be a stalemate characterized by heavy losses on both sides. Instead this war of attrition, Ukraine will run out of available bodies first.
> Ukraine will run out of available bodies first
I'm not sure why you believe this. And if you do believe this, Western aid will offset that problem significantly
In this war of attrition, Ukraine will run out of bodies first.
That’s a very complicated and oblique way of saying: “I need to study this situation a lot more.”
My advice would be to begin by recalling the nearly finalized agreement which was scuttled by Biden and Boris Johnson. Zelensky could have ignored the advice of these two puppet masters, and that would have been that. Using that as a baseline, play out the next three years, and try to accept that, just as with the invasion of Iraq, the US is not interested in peace. It is interested in war. That’s something even a five year old can see. And Zelensky is maybe more comfortable with that age group, his experience as a ‘Penisist’ being not quite the right background for dealing with a former head of the KGB.
> If your 5yo saw someone beating up her friend, and you told her something like "don't worry, little Timmy had it coming for trying to make new friends, and honestly if he just took the punches quietly the beating would end sooner", you may think you're being really smart, that you've found some edge case that makes up down. But the kid would instinctively know that you're wrong. The kid would help their friend.
Your advice is "little Timmy should just take the punches more quietly," mixed in with literal Russian propaganda (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/12/zelenskyy-rejects-claim-boris-johnson-talked-him-out-of-2022-peace-deal). "That would be that", o you mean that Ukraine would cede a fifth of its territory and lose the sovereign right to defend itself? Bad take.
I hope you take *my* advice and rethink your information diet, or, barring that, sit down and watch some Sesame Street to recalibrate.
Of course he rejects it. It makes him look like a fool. But there were reliable witnesses, backed by physical evidence, and who would invent a story which makes no one look good? One thing that even their adversaries concede regarding Russians is that they do not bluff, and tend not to lie. Kennedy discovered this the hard way in his negotiations with Kruschov. And Zelensky is not reliable for three reasons: He is perpetually threatened by his own people, (the Nazis who tell him what to do); he is losing the war badly and needs to save face; and he’s not very bright.
So to summarize your position:
- Russians are always honest people
- Zelensky is dumb and secretly a nazi
Either you are downstream of Russian propaganda, or you *are* Russian propaganda.
Just to be clear, nothing you say here has anything to do with the point of this blog post, which is: Russia is invading Ukraine, not the other way around, and Russia could stop the war today if they wanted to. Zelensky could be the least bright person on the planet (by all accounts, he seems quite capable and smart), and it would not make a difference at all to the crux of what I'm saying. There could have been twenty different peace deals that have all been refused, and it would not make a difference at all to the crux of what I'm saying.
You are like the teacher who, seeing a teen punch a 5yo, yells at the 5yo for hurting the teen's fist. "Well, little Timmy, maybe you shouldnt have been so punchable"
It's a position completely devoid of ethics.
I said:
“Russians…tend not to lie.”
You repeat:
“Russians are always honest.”
I said:
“He is perpetually threatened by his own people, (the Nazis who tell him what to do)”
You frame it as his being “a secret Nazi.” (If he was a secret Nazi, they wouldn’t have to threaten him, would they?$
Do you see why I have no further interest in this conversation?
I'm sorry you disagreed with my framing of your position. You can definitely attempt to correct my misunderstanding. But otherwise, what's that old saying? This isn't an airport, you dont have to announce your departure 😂
Did you comment twice, first on a note (https://substack.com/profile/42646496-somatzu/note/c-124689080) and then again on this post? That's kinda weird. Don't worry bro, I get notifications.
What is your actual argument? Do you have one? Or did you just come here to fling shit? If the latter, I'm just going to ban you for 30 days.
Also, you clearly didn't get the point of the post (or...like...read it...) since the whole point is that the 5 year old has better ethical clarity than all of the people who gigabrain themselves into believing Putin's bullshit. Such as yourself.
Banned for 30 days.
Don't know why you decided to come here just to be aggressive and annoying. Banned for 30 days.
What exactly are you arguing? Like, if you just came here to insult me, let me know and I can block you and we can skip the insults and save everyone time. Alternatively, if you have an actual position you want to stake out, feel free
> But you won me over
I'm glad that my writing resonated! 😇 please subscribe if you liked it!
> Those of us that are frustrated with Ukraine and the blank-check that we've granted them, both metaphorically and literally, aren't necessarily saying Russia is in the right.
But there are many people who explicitly argue that Russia is in the right! There are people going around talking about how Russia is "just trying to protect innocent civilians from the neo-nazi Ukranians" or "Russia is just trying to protect its borders from the evil encroaching NATO"!
You may not fall into that camp, in which case this post may not be *about* you.
To respond to the first two points: I think you are actually reasoning yourself into a pit. When you say something like "look at the decades of history" you are, imo, pulling in information that is not relevant. The reason a 5yo could rationalize this is because it really is that simple: Russia attacked Ukraine, and Russia could stop attacking Ukraine tomorrow. What, exactly, do you think is complicating this situation?
For what it's worth, I think the 5yo would correctly adjudicate that situation too! Though, generally, having other friends isn't seen as berating and insulting someone.
Is your take that Ukraine (and NATO) have been somehow threatening Russia historically? Why do you believe this / what specifically has Ukraine (and NATO) done?