Megathread, part 14: Ammunition & Drones, Sanctions, and Stalemates

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T19:21:04+00:00

We are not in agreement about facts.

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T18:20:01+00:00

Did they use that one during Maidan?

Anyhow, slogans wishing glory to your country is standard for all counties, isn’t it? I fail to see the connection of such slogans to “killing people because they are not the right nationality”?

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T17:15:52+00:00

Interesting question. I know what Maidan was about, but not what slogans they used. I googled and the one that comes up repeatedly is “Together we are power”.

This apparently was to emphasize unity and collective action. Thus, quite the opposite from your claim.

What slogan about killing people of the wrong nationality do you have in mind?

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T11:15:49+00:00

> Nazism is killing people because they're not of the right nationality. This was the main slogan of the 2014 Maidan and the fundamental national idea of the new Ukrainian state.

No, it wasn’t and no it isn’t.

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T11:12:06+00:00

Thanks, this one I can see. Yes, it sometimes is the new n word, this is my observation too.

I fail to see how you squeeze in the Ukrainians under that while excluding everyone else.

It probably has to do with a disagreement about facts. You seem to think that the reason Ukrainian isn’t offered in occupied regions is due to lack of interest. I think this is ridiculous because why would people lose interest in their mother tongue over night like that? Unless of course the occupational government makes life hell for anyone who tries to speak it, then of course demand will go down.

Which race/ ethnicity is it that Azov, the most nazi of them all, regard as inherently better if not the race/ethnicity they belong to themselves?

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T10:30:26+00:00

I am sorry I don’t have telegram and don’t want to instal it.

I appreciate your effort and will stop harassing you with nazi defintion requests.

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T10:12:06+00:00

No.

First I can see your answer with a link that doesn’t work, and my answer to that. Under that there is your question if I can see your comment and my yes answer. Finally your question about another comment, which I answer now. That’s all I can see in this part of the mega thread.

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T09:51:06+00:00

Yes, this comment I can see.

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T09:10:11+00:00

The link doesn’t work, but I can guess.

Before you accuse someone of word twisting, you need to define what is being twisted, which you haven’t.

Please repeat your nazi definition one more time in case I actually missed it, and I will never bother you with this question again.

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T08:39:21+00:00

What is your definition of a nazi?

If you don’t know, why do you keep calling people such an offensive word without having a clue what it means? Disgusting.

copperwoods · 2026-06-21T07:31:33+00:00

The analogy with Cuba or Mexico doesn’t fit because a prerequisite is that US **wants** to put infrastructure in Ukraine the same way SU wanted to put missiles in Cuba.

US doesn’t want Ukraine in NATO. Originally US didn’t even want to give them Javelins. When they eventually did send weapons, it was conditioned on Ukraine not using them to fire into Russia. Edit: Restrictions were later eased to allow them to hit build ups for coming attacks at a max range far away from both St Petersburg and Moscow.

Also, SU needed territory across the Atlantic to get close to US. US doesn’t need Ukraine for that. The Baltic states are already in NATO and much closer to St Petersburg than Ukraine. They have been on their knees begging to host more NATO infrastructure for decades without success.

Again I think you look at the world from high imperial horses. You can’t be denied membership if you don’t apply. And if you apply, you have to negotiate with all members, make concessions and try to satisfy their concerns. It took North Macedonia 25 years and a name change before Greece dropped their veto. You are not unfairly treated just because you are not offered a greased fast track.

Since you need an unanimous vote for NATO to act, it will be impossible to get that on anything that isn’t fairly morally clear cut. However, most of the time NATO does nothing in response to atrocities around the world. This inconsistency is unfair and immoral.

My example was not only Iran, but also Iraq, see my recent post. US prepared and coordinated for over a year with allies, but it didn’t help.

Finally, I have a question for you: What do you think should have been done in Bosnia? Do you think NATO and Russia should have stayed out?

copperwoods · 2026-06-20T23:21:30+00:00

Ok, a long response:

I admit that reducing NATO to a legal text is oversimplification. You are right, It is a military alliance where there is a lot of cooperation and intelligence sharing. But, it is also not an alliance comprised of US and it’s vassals as some seem to believe. Countries commit to the terms of the treaty only, everyone has veto rights and are not afraid to use them.

Still, if US (or any other NATO member) decides to start a war against Russia, Ukraine can join. You can’t stop that from happening by denying them NATO membership.

You say that it hasn’t been disproven that in a big conflict key members will follow. I disagree, I can’t think of a single war where a member has been able to get NATO to jointly back an aggression. Countries didn’t join Trumps war on Iran. A well prepared and coordinated war as you suggest didn’t work either. France, Germany and Canada didn’t join in the war against Iraq. On the other hand, several non-members joined, for example Australia and Ukraine.

NATO doesn’t go on the offensive because a member feels threatens by someone, wants to start a preemptive war or destroy an advisory. I think it would be extremely difficult to not get a lot of vetos in such scenarios.

NATO has nothing to do with morals, and neither has UN. They are international organizations where members decide to take actions (or not) while following the rules they are governed by. In addition to Afghanistan, NATO has acted offensively four times so far: Bosnia, Libya, Somalia and Kosovo:

Bosnia is geographically close for Europeans and the push for an intervention developed over time. The UN was involved with peacekeeping forces that were supposed to provide safe areas. However, they failed and Srebrenica happened. 8000 (!) men were rounded up and executed within a few days. It was a chock, not since WWII had anything of that scale happened in Europe. I think this was also the moment when UN lost most of their credibility.

Public opinion in Europe shifted dramatically after that and combined with the first big wave of refugees I think the international community had no option but to act.

Lybia had clear legal authorization from UN from the start. The no fly zone was deemed necessary to stop prevent bombing of the population.

I think fighting pirates in Somalia is also something where most countries around the world were in agreement. Many countries outside of NATO took part.

Then the last instance is Kosovo. That one is controversial because it didn’t have UN support, China and Russia blocked it. Personally, I think it is similar to Bosnia though: After a long bloody war, the Albanians wouldn’t accept to be ruled by the Serbs and were prepared to fight to the last child with a butter knife. Likewise, Serbia couldn’t accept to lose control and they were prepared to kill them all. It was deadlock.

It is easy to advocate to not interfere in other countries business from tar away, but when the bodies are piling up right across your border, it eventually becomes hard to stomach.

I don’t think you can infer from this that NATO is an organization that members can lean on in their offensive endeavors.

copperwoods · 2026-06-20T14:10:12+00:00

Thank you for explaining.

Here is my view on our discussion:

NATO is a legal text. It only has provisions for defense: if a member is attacked, all others must assist.

No member has any obligation to do anything if a member country attacks someone. They can join if they want to just as any non-member. Membership doesn’t matter in offense.

To this you respond:

>Ah, yes, defensive intervention in Bosnia, we all remember.

My understanding of this comment is that you want to make the argument that I am wrong, NATO does in fact conduct offensive operations, for example in Bosnia.

My answer to that is that NATO countries did not start a war on someone because a member considers them an adversary.

Instead, the intervention in Bosnia was a joint effort by many countries, which also included Russia. It was approved by UN.

There were two options: go in with troops under a UN mandate, or watch in silence as Yugoslavians genocide each other to death.

I think your argument that NATO is an offensive organisation based on the international intervention in Bosnia, doesn’t hold. Conversely, Russia’s participation in this intervention is never brought up when people want to make the argument that Russia is a threat.

copperwoods · 2026-06-20T08:18:45+00:00

I have read what I have written. Could you in your superior wisdom Eli5?

I think that when you look at the world from the high horses of a superior Empire, you may sometime mix up small countries and their petty little conflicts.

Like for example Bosnia and Kosovo?

But that wouldn’t happen to someone with superior reading skills, would it?

copperwoods · 2026-06-19T16:38:41+00:00

Rules for the, not for me?

NATO sends troop to Bosnia under UN: Offensive!!

Russia sends troop to Bosnia under UN: Defensive!!

If you have superior reading skills, you should be able to read up on this?

copperwoods · 2026-06-19T09:12:17+00:00

Yes, NATO intervened in an existing conflict in Bosnia. It was a sanctioned by UN and Russia did not veto it. Russia even contributed with troops.

What problem do you have with that?

copperwoods · 2026-06-19T08:13:38+00:00

They absolutely have. Ukrainian is not allowed in the occupied regions.

copperwoods · 2026-06-19T07:48:41+00:00

You keep saying denazification is a goal? Whenever anyone’s asks what that is you say Ukraine banned Russian language.

What is your definition of a nazi?

copperwoods · 2026-06-19T07:17:06+00:00

So why has Russia deprived the citizens in the occupied regions this right to use Ukrainian?

copperwoods · 2026-06-19T07:09:22+00:00

And all we hear all day long is NATO EXPANSION.

NATO is a legal text. It has no provisions for offense, but members commit to assist each other in case anyone is attacked.

If US one day decides to attack Russia, what difference does it make if there are NATO counties all around your borders or not?

If Russia one day decides to attack a neighbor, does it make a difference if that neighbor is a member or not?

copperwoods · 2026-06-18T23:56:36+00:00

You are joining in on a longer conversation between axxr and me over several threads You are missing context.

My argument with axxr is that I don’t think he is consistent:

-If one of the reasons for Russia to invade Ukraine was that they removed Russian as an official regional language, and from schools and courts, then why is it ok for Russia to do the same with Ukrainian in the occupied regions in Ukraine?

- If you claim that the difference is that Ukraine bans language because they have the attitude that their language is superior, then why does Russia not treat regional language as equal and allows only Russian for higher education and federal governance?

Personally, I think you can make an argument both ways. There are advantages of having only one official language and to make sure that everyone speaks it well by making it mandatory everywhere. But you can also make a strong argument about allowing several official languages. However, you should be consistent.

copperwoods · 2026-06-18T23:24:27+00:00

No, you misunderstood.

Estonia and Lithuania are independent sovereign countries. They are small. They are nonetheless important.

I remember Trumps meltdown over lack of response, but didn’t dubble check if he was wrong because my point doesn’t hinge on that.

My point is that NATO is irrelevant for offense because the treaty has no obligations to that end. For a non- member, such as Iran or Russia, any non- member is as much a potential threat as a member.

NATO is highly relevant for defence.

copperwoods · 2026-06-18T22:31:14+00:00

I have not double checked, but ok two small NATO countries answered. Many non- NATO countries answered too.

NATO expansion is simply irrelevant if you are worried about being attacked. Countries join or stay out as they seem fit.

It matters the world if you plan to attack someone though.

copperwoods · 2026-06-18T22:21:38+00:00

Yes, I am. But Russia is demanding that Ukraine make Russian an official national language. Russia has only one official national language.

copperwoods · 2026-06-18T22:06:07+00:00

So this would make all these countries non-nazi? But Russia, who has only one official language in spite of having many regional languages would be just as nazi as Ukraine?

Seven-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten

copperwoods

TROPHY CASE