43 Replies to “June 22, 2025: Reader Tips”

  2. Subjugating a few unfortunate Easter European nations didn’t make the Soviets themselves “Eastern European”, duh.

  3. So, apparently, Iranian military is another paper tiger. Their retaliatory strikes on Israel had negligible effect, while they themselves got pounded badly.

    In that regard, it’s interesting that the primary means for Russia to terrorise Ukraine is now waves of Iran-designed Shahed drones, from which it’s pretty obvious that the Russian military is a paper tiger’s paper tiger. I mean, without the drones of Iranian design, copied by the Russians and now mostly made locally, they could only launch a few missiles at Ukraine per week, most of which would have been shut down by the Ukrainian air defences, especially now that the ancient Russian strategic bomber force (mostly made of propeller-driven Tu-95s) was put out of action by Ukrainian drone strikes – what has not been destroyed or disabled is now hiding around military bases in the Far East, as far away from any roads as possible and, obviously, they cannot launch their standoff missiles from there…

    1. “from which it’s pretty obvious that the Russian military is a paper tiger’s paper tiger. ”

      With the world’s largest stock of nuclear weapons to back them up, I don’t think they are too worried.

      ” I mean, without the drones of Iranian design, copied by the Russians and now mostly made locally, they could only launch a few missiles at Ukraine per week, ”

      And where would the Ukrainians be without Helsing and Quantum systems building and supplying them with drones?

      ” the ancient Russian strategic bomber force (mostly made of propeller-driven Tu-95s) was put out of action by Ukrainian drone strikes ”

      They didn’t get any TU-160s though, did they? More of a symbolic strike than a practical one (much like their ‘invasion’ of Kursk).

      Someone needs to tell the Russians that they are ‘losing’ in Ukraine. They don’t seem to realize it, for some reason….they just keep taking more territory as if they are winning.

      1. I agree. The Russians are winning and it will only take them 1,000 years at their rate of conquest. I will miss the victory parade. Has it ever occurred to you that the Ukrainians are doing the rope-a-dope? They kill considerably more Russians on defence than on offence. and 1,000 years means they are not in a hurry.

        1. As much as I hate having to repeat myself, I will say one more time: reality STILL doesn’t care about your feelings.

      2. > With the world’s largest stock of nuclear weapons to back them up, I don’t think they are too worried.

        They should be, unless they are really stupid. They can’t fight an offensive war with nukes (how did their nukes help them in Ukraine?) and they haven’t fought a defensive one since WW2. I don’t see anybody showing a slightest intention of conquering Russia (the West would certainly refuse to occupy it, even if they knew they could do it without any losses). At worst, China may decide to shave off some of the Russian territory, but I doubt Russia would go for a total nuclear exchange even then, unless the Chinese showed some serious intent of taking Moscow and toppling the current regime. More likely, the Russians would just cede more territory to their Chinese overlords as they have already done before, see https://besacenter.org/on-china-territorial-claims-against-the-russian-federation/

        > And where would the Ukrainians be without Helsing and Quantum systems building and supplying them with drones?

        Sure, Ukraine would have lost without foreign technology, but it has nothing to do with my point.

        > They didn’t get any TU-160s though, did they?

        Maybe not, because there weren’t many to get in the first place. The Tu-160’s mission is to be a poster child for the Russian strategic bomber force, making it appear more modern than it actually is (I don’t remember any Tu-160s taking part in actual combat missions). Their backbone is still the Tu-95 with WW2-style propellers and tail guns.

        >More of a symbolic strike than a practical one (much like their ‘invasion’ of Kursk).

        Oh really? The Russians were using Tu-95s to launch standoff missiles at Ukraine, like in the infamous strike on Dnipro that destroyed a large section of an apartment building and killed scores of civilians. They’re not likely to do that anymore and you can’t see the pratical value? Sour grapes.

        >Someone needs to tell the Russians that they are ‘losing’ in Ukraine. They don’t seem to realize it, for some reason….they just keep taking more territory as if they are winning.

        Yes, they keep taking more villages, laying down about as many of their troops as the original population of those villages. Any town taken since 2022 took them months to conquer. They haven’t been able to take Pokrovsk for years, haven’t been able to take Vovchansk for years (and that is a small town), etc. The only large city they took and managed to hold was Mariupol early in the war. They also took Kherson, but then had to retreat from there. Does that kind of “winning” make you proud?

    1. After settling for siphoning off tens of millions (e.g. ArriveScam), the Liberals looked south and discovered the Democrats were siphoning off billions.
      Carnage’s Liberals are now aiming bigger.

    2. OIC s are detestable, circumventing parliamentary debate, all legislative intent must pass the “mens rea” test to determine real intent, i.e., subjective (emotional?) vs. objective (logical?).

    1. I remind them that slavery was ended in the US by a WHITE CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN MAN….

      1. “I remind them that slavery was ended in the US by a WHITE CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN MAN….”

        At the cost of roughly 360,000 Union lives. I’d call that ‘reparations’ enough…

        1. All while fighting Confederate DEMOCRATS, who still support slavery through illegal immigrants doing the jobs.

    2. The blacks of Africa should pay reparations since they sold their brothers and sisters into slavery.

      1. Slavery was invented in Africa and the Middle East.

        It took the whiteys to perfect it though, like everything else it seems, except maybe call centres, and panhandling at red traffic lights……..

      2. “The blacks of Africa should pay reparations since they sold their brothers and sisters into slavery.”

        Yeah, that too. As much as it was a powerful piece of propaganda to see white men chasing Africans through the jungle in TV shows like Roots, it actually never happened.

    1. Now let them try and do so. I predict it won’t go the way the mullahs (piss be upon them) want.

    2. Do the Iranian Theocracy even hear themselves talk? Close the straights … and close ANY chance of your Islamic middle eastern neighbors coming to your rescue. Go ahead … make yourselves an even greater pariah State than you already are.

      Damn it feels good to have a gangstah in the White House.

      https://youtu.be/XASNM1XEQPs?si=7wNJTKnpMYaFzjG1

  14. > With the world’s largest stock of nuclear weapons to back them up, I don’t think they are too worried.

    They should be, unless they are really stupid. They can’t fight an offensive war with nukes (how did their nukes help them in Ukraine?) and they haven’t fought a defensive one since WW2. I don’t see anybody showing a slightest intention of conquering Russia (the West would certainly refuse to occupy it, even if they knew they could do it without any losses). At worst, China may decide to shave off some of the Russian territory, but I doubt Russia would go for a total nuclear exchange even then, unless the Chinese showed some serious intent of taking Moscow and toppling the current regime. More likely, the Russians would just cede more territory to their Chinese overlords as they have already done before, see https://besacenter.org/on-china-territorial-claims-against-the-russian-federation/

    > And where would the Ukrainians be without Helsing and Quantum systems building and supplying them with drones?

    Sure, Ukraine would have lost without foreign technology, but it has nothing to do with my point.

    > They didn’t get any TU-160s though, did they?

    Maybe not, because there weren’t many to get in the first place. The Tu-160’s mission is to be a poster child for the Russian strategic bomber force, making it appear more modern than it actually is (I don’t remember any Tu-160s taking part in actual combat missions). Their backbone is still the Tu-95 with WW2-style propellers and tail guns.

    >More of a symbolic strike than a practical one (much like their ‘invasion’ of Kursk).

    Oh really? The Russians were using Tu-95s to launch standoff missiles at Ukraine, like in the infamous strike on Dnipro that destroyed a large section of an apartment building and killed scores of civilians. They’re not likely to do that anymore and you can’t see the pratical value? Sour grapes.

    >Someone needs to tell the Russians that they are ‘losing’ in Ukraine. They don’t seem to realize it, for some reason….they just keep taking more territory as if they are winning.

    Yes, they keep taking more villages, laying down about as many of their troops as the original population of those villages. Any town taken since 2022 took them months to conquer. They haven’t been able to take Pokrovsk for years, haven’t been able to take Vovchansk for years (and that is a small town), etc. The only large city they took and managed to hold was Mariupol early in the war. They also took Kherson, but then had to retreat from there. Does that kind of “winning” make you proud?

    1. Kursk a symbolic strike?? They took Kursk at small cost and got to butcher a lot of Russians as they withdrew over months. Ukraine doesn’t have the numbers so they do defence at a fraction of the cost of offence. Eventually the Russians will quit.

      1. “Kursk a symbolic strike?? ”

        Absolutely. It was only launched as a desperate gamble to distract the Russians and slow their advances in the east. It failed miserably when Putin refused to take the bait. When they realized this, they should have withdrawn immediately…but they just weren’t smart enough.

        “They took Kursk at small cost and got to butcher a lot of Russians as they withdrew over months. ”

        The Russians got to butcher even more Ukrainians, and at very little cost to themselves. That’s what happens when your enemies are IDIOTS who drive into your territory too quickly and allow themselves to be surrounded too easily.

        “Ukraine doesn’t have the numbers so they do defence at a fraction of the cost of offence. ”

        So you admit that it is a war of attrition, then? Good. Then you also know how it is going to end.

        “Eventually the Russians will quit.”

        LOL…that’s a keeper, that one…thanks for that.

    2. “> With the world’s largest stock of nuclear weapons to back them up, I don’t think they are too worried.

      They should be, unless they are really stupid. They can’t fight an offensive war with nukes ”

      Oh, but they can. ‘Tactical’ nukes, they are called…and they ensure that NATO forces will never be in direct combat with Russian troops in Ukraine. Again: they aren’t worried. In a war of attrition, they can’t lose (and they know it).

      “> And where would the Ukrainians be without Helsing and Quantum systems building and supplying them with drones?

      Sure, Ukraine would have lost without foreign technology, but it has nothing to do with my point.”

      No, It has everything to do with your point, since you tried to use Russia’s seeming reliance on Iranian drones it to call Russia “a paper tiger’s paper tiger”. Right back at ya: Ukraine is in the very same boat.

      “> They didn’t get any TU-160s though, did they?

      Maybe not, because there weren’t many to get in the first place. ”

      You mean because they couldn’t reach them.

      “The Tu-160’s mission is to be a poster child for the Russian strategic bomber force, making it appear more modern than it actually is ”

      A lame assertion, and completely subjective.

      ” Their backbone is still the Tu-95 with WW2-style propellers and tail guns.”

      And Ukraine destroyed a whopping *four* of them.

      “Oh really? The Russians were using Tu-95s to launch standoff missiles at Ukraine, like in the infamous strike on Dnipro that destroyed a large section of an apartment building and killed scores of civilians. They’re not likely to do that anymore”

      Sure they are, since they have over 40 of them left (and 15 TU-160’s, should they choose use them).

      ” and you can’t see the pratical value? Sour grapes.”

      Realism.

      (hey, how ’bout that Kursk invasion…how’s that going?)

      “Yes, they keep taking more villages, laying down about as many of their troops as the original population of those villages”

      Says who….Ukraine? The Russians say different. But it doesn’t matter either way, because even it that were true Russia could sustain those losses…Ukraine CANNOT.

      “Any town taken since 2022 took them months to conquer. They haven’t been able to take Pokrovsk for years, haven’t been able to take Vovchansk for years (and that is a small town), etc. The only large city they took and managed to hold was Mariupol early in the war. They also took Kherson, but then had to retreat from there.”

      So, then the Russians are NOT losing as many people as your propaganda claims? If they are really going that slowly, then they are being quite cautious, right? And that caution means not losing nearly as many soldiers as you claim. Pick an argument and stick with it: either they are throwing their soldiers into a meat grinder and not caring about their losses or they are slowly and cautiously (and steadily) advancing.

      ” Does that kind of “winning” make you proud?”

      Why would it?

      I actually don’t care about anything but the truth, and seeing people like you urging Ukrainians to keep fighting until they are all dead sickens me. The reality is, Ukraine CANNOT WIN this…so they should cut their losses and make peace with Russia before Russia takes *all* of Ukraine. They really don’t have any choice now, since the US is finished financing this atrocity.

      1. >Oh, but they can. ‘Tactical’ nukes, they are called…and they ensure that NATO forces will never be in direct combat with Russian troops in Ukraine. Again: they aren’t worried. In a war of attrition, they can’t lose (and they know it).

        No, they cannot. Their own established doctrine prohibits it. Obviously, they would care nothing about violating that doctrine but the consequences for them would be devastating. Also, their Chinese overlords are strictly against it, which (as rumored) was why the Russians never dared to use nukes in Ukraine. And in your typical fashion you ignored the inconvenient question of “how did their nukes help them in Ukraine”?

        > No, It has everything to do with your point, since you tried to use Russia’s seeming reliance on Iranian drones it to call Russia “a paper tiger’s paper tiger”. Right back at ya: Ukraine is in the very same boat.

        Sure it is. But nobody here ever tried to portray Ukrainian military as formidable; not so with the Russian one and that’s the difference.

        > A lame assertion, and completely subjective.

        Give an example of effective combat use of the Tu-160, please (preferably in Ukraine). I don’t think it’s even able to carry standoff missiles (correct me if I’m be wrong) and if one ventures into the Ukrainian airspace with bombs, etc., it’s as good as dead, as it’s not low-observable (no Russian planes are) and Ukraine has got plenty of systems capable of hitting a large plane. Tu-160 is just a shitty Russian copy of the American B-1.

        > Sure they are, since they have over 40 of them left (and 15 TU-160’s, should they choose use them).

        You’re either a demagogue or too thick to get the point. Read my original post again: the Russians are hiding their strategic bombers around military bases in the Far East after the successful Ukrainian attack. That’s not a good place to attack Ukraine from: not practical and perhaps impossible.

        >Says who….Ukraine? The Russians say different.

        No, independent analysts. I don’t take either Russian or Ukrainian claims at face value.

        > But it doesn’t matter either way, because even it that were true Russia could sustain those losses
        Proof?

        > So, then the Russians are NOT losing as many people as your propaganda claims? If they are really going that slowly, then they are being quite cautious, right? And that caution means not losing nearly as many soldiers as you claim. Pick an argument and stick with it: either they are throwing their soldiers into a meat grinder and not caring about their losses or they are slowly and cautiously (and steadily) advancing.

        Wow. Just wow. By what kind of hyper-twisted logic slow progress = low losses (look at the WW1 battles for Christ’s sake)? It’s like saying that every wet object also must be heavy. You’re one step away from repeating “yeahwell”‘s ridiculous claims of “Russians are only progressing slowly because they aim to capture the infrastructure intact”.

        1. Just to clarify what I meant, the Russian established doctrine prohibits first nuclear strike except in cases when there’s an existential threat to their state.

      2. > seeing people like you urging Ukrainians to keep fighting until they are all dead sickens me.

        Either give an example of my “urging Ukrainians to keep fighting until they are all dead” or finally find the courage to visit a psychiatrist to get some treatment for your schizophrenia.

        > The reality is, Ukraine CANNOT WIN this…so they should cut their losses and make peace with Russia before Russia takes *all* of Ukraine.

        Foolish. They way they’re waging this war, the Russians can’t even take what the Ukrainian regions they claim. Again: the Russians haven’t been able to take Pokrovsk for YEARS, haven’t been able to take Vovchansk for YEARS (and that is a SMALL TOWN). How do you suppose they could take a MEGAPOLIS like Kharkov? You really do “need help” if you’re serious.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation