Are Japanese the most superior people ?

[Longbowman]

Mariupol has fallen and so a few other cities in the south where Russia has raised their flag on admistrative buildings, minor squirmishes and operations of mopping the last hidden nazi remnants who are getting out of their lairs at night trying to escape ( and the capture of a 3 stars french NATO general) will be concluded in a matter of days, changes nothing regarding the fact the city is taken and controlled by Russia.

Ah yes, then, Stalingrad also 'fell,' because a civilian administrative building was taken. War is capture the flag, and you can't move the flag.

As I said a while ago I am sure Mariupol will eventually fall. Even Russia does not claim it has yet fallen though. Only its sycophants, like you. Until then it is still engaging a five-figure number of Russian troops who can't be used elsewhere.

I never realized there was a battle for Kiev since WW2, as since then there was never an attempt to storm and take control of the city.

Curious because the same analysts who sustained it was impossible to take a huge sprawling 3.5 million city with just a few dozens of thousand men are the same arguing the Russian failed at that pseudo objective that was impossible in the first place. A bit of intellectual honesty and coherence is too much to ask for?

1) I never said this so it's not relevant. It's intellectual dishonesty for YOU to bring up supposed inconsistency of other people who are 'on my side.' I don't make fun of you by saying 'Silverknight changes his opinion every five minutes' because you have nothing to do with his stupidity and rank dishonesty, only your own.
2) Whilst I disagree with their point it's actually not inconsistent. You could believe Russia was dumb enough to undertake a task you think was impossible. If you had an IQ of over 80 you'd have realised that.

Point 3) is 'why?' Why did Russia go to the North to begin with? 'To invade the South.' OK, how did invading the North help? 'It tied up troops.' OK, so why did you leave before the South was invaded? Or for that matter engage in artillery duels, seizures of airfields (that were unsuccessful) or other complete wastes of ammunition, considering you don't need to be aggressive to 'tie up troops?' 'Uh...duh...muhhhh...'

Russia obviously suffered serious setbacks, you have to be head-deep in Putin's arse not to recognise that.

A pity you don't like long explanatory videos from real experts with a broad, neutral, non propagandistic analysis, it would greatly increase your understanding of the strategic and military scenario on the ground.

A pity you can't argue your own point and get curbstomped in debate. 'Neutral,' kek. Everyone has an agenda.

[Bleach]

No, I definitely don't think they are superior. They have one weird culture where they talk behind peoples backs instead of telling it to your face, even if it's just some small things that you are doing wrong, and they don't sit next to foreigners in trains, they are racist/xhenophobic and people there kill themselves working. I would like to visit and I like anime and manga but I wouldn't wanna live there.









There are also a lot of of single people there that have no sex life. A lot of couples that are together just to be together but actually cheat on the side etc , just in general one weird culture.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Ah yes, then, Stalingrad also 'fell,' because a civilian administrative building was taken. War is capture the flag, and you can't move the flag.

As I said a while ago I am sure Mariupol will eventually fall. Even Russia does not claim it has yet fallen though. Only its sycophants, like you. Until then it is still engaging a five-figure number of Russian troops who can't be used elsewhere.



1) I never said this so it's not relevant. It's intellectual dishonesty for YOU to bring up supposed inconsistency of other people who are 'on my side.' I don't make fun of you by saying 'Silverknight changes his opinion every five minutes' because you have nothing to do with his stupidity and rank dishonesty, only your own.
2) Whilst I disagree with their point it's actually not inconsistent. You could believe Russia was dumb enough to undertake a task you think was impossible. If you had an IQ of over 80 you'd have realised that.

Point 3) is 'why?' Why did Russia go to the North to begin with? 'To invade the South.' OK, how did invading the North help? 'It tied up troops.' OK, so why did you leave before the South was invaded? Or for that matter engage in artillery duels, seizures of airfields (that were unsuccessful) or other complete wastes of ammunition, considering you don't need to be aggressive to 'tie up troops?' 'Uh...duh...muhhhh...'

Russia obviously suffered serious setbacks, you have to be head-deep in Putin's arse not to recognise that.



A pity you can't argue your own point and get curbstomped in debate. 'Neutral,' kek. Everyone has an agenda.

1. Idiotic comparison, in Mariupol and other cities taken by Russia the enemy has no capacity to engage in a serious battle or a counter offensive. It's a matter of days to eliminate the last remnants, that is a common case in military history, for example in Berlin even after the surrender pockets of Nazi resistance remained for weeks.

2. Your IQ comment is laughable and it will boomerang on you as I will explain next.

3. You know nothing of military operations and you are so arrogant that you don't even try to understand, it's obvious that first it was necessary to incapacitate the enemy in terms of logistics, air power and military mobility. Or do you think it was possible to engage a battle on the Donbass against the bulk of the Ukrainian army if they had significant air support, capacity to receive reinforcements, supplies of gas and ammunition? You are retarded and I'm done talking with you.

[Longbowman]

1. Idiotic comparison, in Mariupol and other cities taken by Russia the enemy has no capacity to engage in a serious battle or a counter offensive. It's a matter of days to eliminate the last remnants, that is a common case in military history, for example in Berlin even after the surrender pockets of Nazi resistance remained for weeks.

2. Your IQ comment is laughable and it will boomerang on you as I will explain next.

3. You know nothing of military operations and you are so arrogant that you don't even try to understand, it's obvious that first it was necessary to incapacitate the enemy in terms of logistics, air power and military mobility. Or do you think it was possible to engage a battle on the Donbass against the bulk of the Ukrainian army if they had significant air support, capacity to receive reinforcements, supplies of gas and ammunition?

1. Sure, Mariupol is a large town, not a pivotal city, and they will not fight back in the same way. You have still declared it to have fallen about 6 times when it hasn't, yet.

2. Let's see...

3. 'You're WRONG and that's FINAL!' Sure, you're the armchair general who confidently told us Russia had 'air supremacy' two days before Ukraine raided Beograd and also that 'Russia is always outnumbered' when attacking cities. You're like Silverknight only with better spelling.

As for your retarded suppositions:

a) they haven't actually done any of those things, so your point is moot, but
b) yes, it should easily have been possible, considering they're essentially about to do it. The Ukrainian army there has what, 65,000 men? Even if Ukraine is brave and sends in 50,000 reinforcements Russia could handle it. They have to kill them somewhere, right? Why not the Donbas? Why open up multiple fronts and expose your logistical weaknesses?
c) ask yourself: is it worth it? Yes, of course, Ukraine will be weaker if you kill even 1 soldier outside the Donbas, we suppose. But at what cost? What's the point if the cost to Russia is greater?

Even if we accepted this was the overall motivation, it doesn't mean it was done successfully or without a significant number of considerable setbacks. For example, they lost Hostomel, they were routed in several towns, they suffered 'heavy casualties' according to Peskov - none of this was part of the plan, although it may be acceptable to Putin, who has had to call in reinforcements from distant parts of Russia - even the South Ossetian President announced Russian troops were leaving South Ossetia to go to Ukraine in mid-March. Again, because you are a sycophant with no brain, you think you know better than Putin's actual spokesman and close allies even though the closest you've ever got to 'military operations' is Call of Duty. Arrogant beyond belief.

You are retarded and I'm done talking with you.

Oh what a horrible loss for me.

[Sebastianus Rex]

1. Sure, Mariupol is a large town, not a pivotal city, and they will not fight back in the same way. You have still declared it to have fallen about 6 times when it hasn't, yet.

2. Let's see...

3. 'You're WRONG and that's FINAL!' Sure, you're the armchair general who confidently told us Russia had 'air supremacy' two days before Ukraine raided Beograd and also that 'Russia is always outnumbered' when attacking cities. You're like Silverknight only with better spelling.

As for your retarded suppositions:

a) they haven't actually done any of those things, so your point is moot, but
b) yes, it should easily have been possible, considering they're essentially about to do it. The Ukrainian army there has what, 65,000 men? Even if Ukraine is brave and sends in 50,000 reinforcements Russia could handle it. They have to kill them somewhere, right? Why not the Donbas? Why open up multiple fronts and expose your logistical weaknesses?
c) ask yourself: is it worth it? Yes, of course, Ukraine will be weaker if you kill even 1 soldier outside the Donbas, we suppose. But at what cost? What's the point if the cost to Russia is greater?

Even if we accepted this was the overall motivation, it doesn't mean it was done successfully or without a significant number of considerable setbacks. For example, they lost Hostomel, they were routed in several towns, they suffered 'heavy casualties' according to Peskov - none of this was part of the plan, although it may be acceptable to Putin, who has had to call in reinforcements from distant parts of Russia - even the South Ossetian President announced Russian troops were leaving South Ossetia to go to Ukraine in mid-March. Again, because you are a sycophant with no brain, you think you know better than Putin's actual spokesman and close allies even though the closest you've ever got to 'military operations' is Call of Duty. Arrogant beyond belief.



Oh what a horrible loss for me.

1. Mariupol is 98% controlled by Russia, but I see that you will only admit it has fallen when the very last ukro-nazi is killed/captured.

2. Glad you mention the raid on Belgorod because the Ukrainian army told publicly that they had nothing to do with it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/p...n-russian-soil

I wrote that Russia achieved a very high degree of air superiority and even supremacy on most of the territory and that is correct, a few sporadic actions that is all Ukraine is capable of ( or that they don't even control such as the Belgorod raid) proves exactly my point.

There are at least 100.000 defenders in Kiev alone, obviously Russia is severely outnumbered, they had to resort to encirclement and high mobility strategies to ensure a non-suicidal ratio on selected objectives such as Mariupol. We've been through this already, stop with the distortions, you won't get away with them.

Leave other users like Silvernight out our discussion, by doing so invoking a third party you're engaging in an ungentlemanly conduct and makes you look butthurt/petty.

3. Actually they have been doing exactly so, the fact is that Ukraine has not launched any significant counter offensive and is in no conditions to do so, very limited fuel, insignificant air power, incapacity to reinforce the bulk of their encircled army.

I'm amazed by the contradiction, first you sustained Russia is not fighting in numerical disadvantage and that the Russian generals won't engage in battle without assuring more or less a 3 to 1 advantage ( as it is the established military doctrine for offensive land forces) and now you can't see the problem in allowing the enemy having reinforcements, numerical parity, air support that could inflict heavy loses etc just because you don't want to admit that was the Russian strategy and no attempt was made to storm major cities. Hypocritical a bit don't you think?

4. Of course there were some setbacks and many tactical losses and miscalculations. Hardliners in Russia have made criticism and being pushing for a more robust approach instead of keep fighting with one one tied behind their back. All that said, it won't change the final outcome of this hopeless war, Russia will apply the necessary force and the West is being irresponsible by following the neocon warmonger agenda that only will cause useless suffering and deaths instead of calling all parts to discuss a reasonable peace solution. Madeleine Albright mentality, they don't give a flying fuck about civilian losses as long it fulfills their agenda, genocidal maniacs and you're siding with them.

5. Obviously I've been proving that my comprehension about this matter is far greater than your Call of Dutyquesque shoot them up approach.

6. I must say that by the rather unusual hysterical tone, recurrent verbal abuse and ad hominen attacks discussing this matter that a deep-rooted animosity towards Russia obfuscates your clarity. I am not cheerleading for any of the sides, and I understand that on the greater macro-strategical sphere this is a proxy war between the US and Russia, and Ukraine is just the punching bag. That's why I hold a pragmatic stance instead of allowing myself to be manipulated by emotional appeals that will only envisage military escalation, human suffering, economic depression, severe energetic and food shortages not to mention the very real prospect of an apocalyptic nuclear conflict. Fuck that and all those who side with it.

[Longbowman]

1. Mariupol is 98% controlled by Russia, but I see that you will only admit it has fallen when the very last ukro-nazi is killed/captured.

2. Glad you mention the raid on Belgorod because the Ukrainian army told publicly that they had nothing to do with it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/p...n-russian-soil

I wrote that Russia achieved a very high degree of air superiority and even supremacy on most of the territory and that is correct, a few sporadic actions that is all Ukraine is capable of ( or that they don't even control such as the Belgorod raid) proves exactly my point.

There are at least 100.000 defenders in Kiev alone, obviously Russia is severely outnumbered, they had to resort to encirclement and high mobility strategies to ensure a non-suicidal ratio on selected objectives such as Mariupol. We've been through this already, stop with the distortions, you won't get away with them.

Leave other users like Silvernight out our discussion, by doing so invoking a third party you're engaging in an ungentlemanly conduct and makes you look butthurt/petty.

3. Actually they have been doing exactly so, the fact is that Ukraine has not launched any significant counter offensive and is in no conditions to do so, very limited fuel, insignificant air power, incapacity to reinforce the bulk of their encircled army.

I'm amazed by the contradiction, first you sustained Russia is not fighting in numerical disadvantage and that the Russian generals won't engage in battle without assuring more or less a 3 to 1 advantage ( as it is the established military doctrine for offensive land forces) and now you can't see the problem in allowing the enemy having reinforcements, numerical parity, air support that could inflict heavy loses etc just because you don't want to admit that was the Russian strategy and no attempt was made to storm major cities. Hypocritical a bit don't you think?

4. Of course there were some setbacks and many tactical losses and miscalculations. Hardliners in Russia have made criticism and being pushing for a more robust approach instead of keep fighting with one one tied behind their back. All that said, it won't change the final outcome of this hopeless war, Russia will apply the necessary force and the West is being irresponsible by following the neocon warmonger agenda that only will cause useless suffering and deaths instead of calling all parts to discuss a reasonable peace solution. Madeleine Albright mentality, they don't give a flying fuck about civilian losses as long it fulfills their agenda, genocidal maniacs and you're siding with them.

5. Obviously I've been proving that my comprehension about this matter is far greater than your Call of Dutyquesque shoot them up approach.

6. I must say that by the rather unusual hysterical tone, recurrent verbal abuse and ad hominen attacks discussing this matter that a deep-rooted animosity towards Russia obfuscates your clarity. I am not cheerleading for any of the sides, and I understand that on the greater macro-strategical sphere this is a proxy war between the US and Russia, and Ukraine is just the punching bag. That's why I hold a pragmatic stance instead of allowing myself to be manipulated by emotional appeals that will only envisage military escalation, human suffering, economic depression, severe energetic and food shortages not to mention the very real prospect of an apocalyptic nuclear conflict. Fuck that and all those who side with it.

1) I'm sure they'll gas the last ones out soon.

2) Oh, they had nothing to do with it? But Moscow said they did. So, is Russia lying to you? About a false flag? What else is Russia lying about? What an interesting possibility that raises.

Yes, we 'went through' your absolutely bullshit attempts at arguing for Russian numerical inferiority (pff, 100,000 defenders, that's half their army - maybe if you count old men with AK-47s, and even then I doubt it) - and you did in fact say they had supremacy, and admitted your mistake when critiqued. Do you want me to quote you? Or would you like to lie again before I do?

I don't mention SK, you don't mention anyone else 'on my side,' my hypocritical friend.

3) This is gibberish, another example of you identifying a contradiction that doesn't exist. In an ideal world you would sneeze and the enemy's army would disintegrate. Russia absolutely attempted to storm major cities and on a couple of occasions was successful. It's bizarre, the hoops you jump through to convince yourself you were right. Remember, the Kremlin lies. Would it not benefit them to lie about this?

4) If the US had wanted to enact genocide they could have; everyone fights with 'one hand tied behind their back.' It's just a question of how loose it's tied. Pretending Russia is unduly stringent in its behaviour is risible.

5) No, you've proven nothing but your arrogance and how much of your ego is predicated on your own ill-informed opinion. You're a conspiracy theorist and nothing more. It's clear to anyone who has even sniffed at a rifle that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Even your basic terminology is off, to say nothing of your foundational assumptions. And everyone knows I don't play FPS.

6) I think, my friend, you are projecting quite a bit when accusing anyone else of 'hysteria' over the past few weeks

[Sebastianus Rex]

1) I'm sure they'll gas the last ones out soon.

2) Oh, they had nothing to do with it? But Moscow said they did. So, is Russia lying to you? About a false flag? What else is Russia lying about? What an interesting possibility that raises.

Yes, we 'went through' your absolutely bullshit attempts at arguing for Russian numerical inferiority (pff, 100,000 defenders, that's half their army - maybe if you count old men with AK-47s, and even then I doubt it) - and you did in fact say they had supremacy, and admitted your mistake when critiqued. Do you want me to quote you? Or would you like to lie again before I do?

I don't mention SK, you don't mention anyone else 'on my side,' my hypocritical friend.

3) This is gibberish, another example of you identifying a contradiction that doesn't exist. In an ideal world you would sneeze and the enemy's army would disintegrate. Russia absolutely attempted to storm major cities and on a couple of occasions was successful. It's bizarre, the hoops you jump through to convince yourself you were right. Remember, the Kremlin lies. Would it not benefit them to lie about this?

4) If the US had wanted to enact genocide they could have; everyone fights with 'one hand tied behind their back.' It's just a question of how loose it's tied. Pretending Russia is unduly stringent in its behaviour is risible.

5) No, you've proven nothing but your arrogance and how much of your ego is predicated on your own ill-informed opinion. You're a conspiracy theorist and nothing more. It's clear to anyone who has even sniffed at a rifle that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Even your basic terminology is off, to say nothing of your foundational assumptions. And everyone knows I don't play FPS.

6) I think, my friend, you are projecting quite a bit when accusing anyone else of 'hysteria' over the past few weeks

1. Apparently there are increasing rumors of french soldiers inside the steel factory... let's see if this is proven to be truth if can impact the outcome of the french elections.

2. It was probably the work if a rogue group inside the Ukrainian army, the fact is that the day after Zelensky removed two generals and accuse them of treason. Of course there's a propaganda/desinformation war going on, evidently the Russians lie and the Ukrainian/west lie , I have no illusions about it, it is you who seem to question nothing coming from the Ukrainian side.

3. Ok cut the crap, how the hell was Russia going to storm and attempt to conquer Kiev with just 30-40K men ? Everyone knows city battles are a meat grinder and the casualties would be tremendous against a heavy fortified city. They could only do it if preceeded by a heavy bombing campaign and I mean carpet bombing, like the allies did against Germany, something of that scale. Attempt an invasion on Kiev or Kharkov would be 10 times worse than Mariupol, simply not realistic.

Obviously they had been shaping the battleground, cutting supply lines and incapacitating to large degree the enemy logistics capacity for the main objective which is the Ukrainian army in the Donbass, after that we will see. If you don't understand this I don't know how to put it... believe what you want.

4. Yeah ok you're right, Russia has been applying maximum force, their most destructive weapons, and deliberately mass bombing Ukraine, destroying water and energy facilities etc...happy?

5. No comment.

6. Just read back your own posts.

[Longbowman]

1. Apparently there are increasing rumors of french soldiers inside the steel factory... let's see if this is proven to be truth if can impact the outcome of the french elections.

2. It was probably the work if a rogue group inside the Ukrainian army, the fact is that the day after Zelensky removed two generals and accuse them of treason. Of course there's a propaganda/desinformation war going on, evidently the Russians lie and the Ukrainian/west lie , I have no illusions about it, it is you who seem to question nothing coming from the Ukrainian side.

3. Ok cut the crap, how the hell was Russia going to storm and attempt to conquer Kiev with just 30-40K men ? Everyone knows city battles are a meat grinder and the casualties would be tremendous against a heavy fortified city. They could only do it if preceeded by a heavy bombing campaign and I mean carpet bombing, like the allies did against Germany, something of that scale. Attempt an invasion on Kiev or Kharkov would be 10 times worse than Mariupol, simply not realistic.

Obviously they had been shaping the battleground, cutting supply lines and incapacitating to large degree the enemy logistics capacity for the main objective which is the Ukrainian army in the Donbass, after that we will see. If you don't understand this I don't know how to put it... believe what you want.

4. Yeah ok you're right, Russia has been applying maximum force, their most destructive weapons, and deliberately mass bombing Ukraine, destroying water and energy facilities etc...happy?

5. No comment.

6. Just read back your own posts.

1) All rumours are true when pro-Russia, all rumours are false when pro-Kiev

2) See above

3) The idea probably didn't involve storming it at all, but essentially walking in - shock and awe and local sympathisers. They didn't expect the level of resistance. After all, they, and you, believe Ukraine is in the grip of some Nazi cadre that is oppressing the citizenry - remember Putin's calls for the Ukrainian army to overthrow the government in week one and two? It's just a planning error, albeit not an excusable one.

After that it's a question of ego, and also morale, momentum and face. Essentially your argument is a post-facto 'but it was so difficult, therefore, they would never have intended on doing it!' but that's probably not how it looked to the planners. They had visibly [shit] logistic chains stretching into Belarus and then 60km south. A set of precision strikes it was not.

4) Again, words in my mouth.

5) OK

6) 'Tee hee Britain won't be able to fry fish and chips!' - you, not being hysterical, 5 minutes ago

[Batavia]

They are the most progressive mongolid people, some types have many things in common with Nordids for example.
They are intelligent, dutiful and endure a lot.

Blonde mummies were discovered in china - so I think the blonde (Nordic?) mixed with the mongolids and this nordic blood turned japan into a cultural nation.
The japanese are -no doubt- the most "european" asian people (I don´t want to use the term "Aryan".

[Longbowman]

They are the most progressive mongolid people, some types have many things in common with Nordids for example.
They are intelligent, dutiful and endure a lot.

Blonde mummies were discovered in china - so I think the blonde (Nordic?) mixed with the mongolids and this nordic blood turned japan into a cultural nation.
The japanese are -no doubt- the most "european" asian people (I don´t want to use the term "Aryan".

This is your brain on Nordicism.

Most low-IQ post I've read all day. Thanks mate.