[ljubodrag]

Chronicles of the Special Military Operation
February 4-5, 2023

In the border village of Gornal, Kursk Region, Ukrainian formations
struck residential buildings and a power line. There were no victims.

In Belgorod Region on Feb 4 the enemy shelled residences in Krasnoye and civilian infrastructure near Borisovka.

In border areas of Sumy Region, a 63-for-55 prisoner exchange,
announced earlier, took place.

Russian forces struck an AFU site in the east wing
of the National University of Kharkiv. Some reports say foreign
advisors and high-ranking AFU officers may have been in the building.

In the Kupiansk sector, Russian forces are fighting in western
and NW Dvorichne. At the same time, Russian forces are digging
in near Hryanykivka.

In the Lyman sector, Russian forces took control of AFU outposts
towards Yampolivka. Russian troops pushed Ukrainian units from
a tactically important hill near Makiivka. Heavy fighting continues
near Zhuravka Gully, where Russian forces are repelling counterattacks.


Ukrainian formations launched HIMARS on Feb 4 against Svatove,
LNR, damaging homes, city infrastructure, power lines and a gas pipe.

On Feb 5, the AFU struck residences in Kreminna, injuring 7 civilians.

In the Soledar sector, Wagner assault units are pushing on
AFU defenses near Paraskovivka and Krasna Hora. Russian units
are storming enemy positions near Stupka. In northern Bakhmut,
Russian forces advanced near the meatpacking plant, also taking
a factory south of Krasna Hora.

In southern parts of Bakhmut, Wagner assault units are attacking
AFU defense lines in Sobachivsky District.

Wagner have reached the Chasiv Yar-Bakhmut road. They also began
storming the SW part of Ivanivske (Krasnoye). Russian forces are
also advancing on Bakhmut from the SW.

Positional fighting and artillery duels continue near Vuhledar.
AFU command is bringing in reserves to fortify the city and make
up for losses.

Ukrainian units randomly shelled homes and infrastructure in Donetsk, Makiivka, Horlivka and other towns, with civilian casualties.

Along the entire line of contact on the southern front,
artillery duels continue. Russian forces struck Kherson,
Antonivka, Dniprovske and Havrylivka. AFU struck Nova Kakhovka,
Oleshky and Hola Prystan.

[ljubodrag]

Molodets!

[DrKGSmiff]

[QUOTE=Roosta;7822537]

Originally Posted by DrKGSmiff ↗

Your chain of illogical connections do not a logical conclusion make.

“Putin is an evil despot and I hope he gets his ass kicked out of Ukraine”

ljubodrag has a slow processor so he would clearly not understand what is being shown & informed of, so the long points of factual evidence clearly go straight over his one eyed pro ruskie head.
I would suggest that you keep it to very short sentences rather than factual evidence explanations as he continually struggles to comprehend reality with his sporadic baseless & nonfactual posts but I do give him a gold medal for being the latest pro ruskie DH here & he definitely has traits of Duntez & Faust in him so looks like we have another pro ruskie toy to kick around !

I’m pretty sure the part that made ljubodrag
uncomfortable was my pointing out that the claims that Putin is NOT a raging power-bottom are propaganda. It’s a well-known fact that Putin hasn’t once had to grunt when he poops since way back in his KGB days. The reason Putin has taken such a stand against homosexuals in Russia is that he doesn’t like the competition.

[DrKGSmiff]

Originally Posted by scorpion9 ↗

I don't actually disagree with you that much...but I'm still gonna address a few points.


This is where I disagree with you. Of course, age is a very important determinant of whether someone believes in something or not.
The very young and the very old are far more susceptible to false claims and propaganda than teen-to-mid age'd people. Children believe anything...from Santa to pixies. The old will do the same...if they don't take care of their mental faculties. It doesn't mean that older people are stupid, or easy to fool with propaganda...it just means that they need to work a lot harder to make sure that they aren't fooled. Just like it doesn't mean that middle-aged men are out of shape and have a beer belly...it just means that they need to work harder to make sure that they don't.


This here...is where I agree with you, and it plays an important role in how false information spreads and how people form their beliefs. The older a person becomes, the more they are settled in their ways and the harder it is to change their mind. This is why the older people get, the more conservative they become. Conservatism tries to keep things "the way things were when I was young" and it fights against fast change and progress. This is also why conservatives are severely religious. They were indoctrinated at a very young age( again, age plays a crucial role here ) and after that, changing your religious views is extremely difficult.
Now, modern-day social media algorithms amplify this tendency to "believe what you are believe" by showing people media that is similar to what they have been watching before. It means that if someone stumbles on a conspiracy theory, a flat earth article or some propaganda piece, then all the social media will start to push those agendas on you...making you watch even more bullshit content...which in turn feeds back to the algorithm and makes the problem worse.

That was my point. You, and another poster on here have, multiple times, made the assertion that it’s a “pattern” that older conservatives are the ones who support the pro-Russian propaganda, but I’ve not seen that to be remotely true.

Sure, the very old (old enough to have become mentally infirm) may be as susceptible to propaganda as young children, but those two demographics are not part of the context here. There are not many school children nor many 80-90 year-olds in the convalescent home weighing in on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nor, I hope, participating on DR.

For the context of our discussion, I would assume “the young” to be 18-30 year-olds, and “the old” to be 50-70 year-olds. Those are the people whom we are talking with and about. My assertion is that the 40-70 year-old is MUCH less susceptible to propaganda than the 18-40 year-old simply because the 40-70 year-old has had a lifetime of experience with which to test propaganda against. The 18-40 year-old, especially the younger ones on that spectrum, aren’t as wisened, jaded, or just to the point of “don’t give a fuck”, whatever you want to call it, and are therefore much more ready to accept what their television tells them as fact.

Originally Posted by scorpion9 ↗

This one here caught my attention. I'm not familiar with schools in the USA, so, could you fill me up on what outlandish things they teach in schools over there?

Our schools in the US are very much falling into the trap set in our universities by the (big C)Communists, and are teaching identity politics and divisive culture to our youngest children.

Common grade-school teaching in the US now includes such useless (but usefully divisive) crap such as that a boy who is attracted to other boys, and has feminine traits, is really a girl (or one of some other 92 made up genders), and that it’s perfectly normal for him to cut off his schwanz and change his name.

They’re teaching that our police are murderous white-supremacist thugs committing genocide on brown-skinned people. Our schools, which are supposed to be teaching based on empirical facts, are teaching this even though the statistics tell no such story, but teach it as fact because it “feels” like the truth.

They’re teaching that light-skinned people are inherently racist and that they should be set to disadvantage to make up for their generations of advantage. They ignore that the very foundation of that teaching IS RACIST, by definition, because it’s useful to their divisiveness.

This is all being taught to our school children because the same people who bought into the propaganda and became pro-Russian back when Russia (and China) called itself “communist” are now the senior people within our education system, and they’re teaching the things that the USSR propaganda was filling their heads with back in the 60s and 70s. They’re carrying out the Soviet mission of divisiveness even to this day.

The pro-Russian sentiment is still very much alive and strong in the US, but it is hiding under the surface right now because our own propagandists have found it more useful to sow anti-Putin’s-Russia sentiment right now due to the money that can be grifted by sending it to Ukraine.

Originally Posted by scorpion9 ↗

I agree with this one here as well.
US in general either doesn't care about Russia or is anti Russia. Definitely not pro-russia. But...the groups in US that do push pro-russian propaganda...in my personal experience, have all been Christian nationalists with the attitude of "get them Mexicans off my lawn, Putin is right because he fights for family values and save Jesus....even if its a Russian jesus.
Putin is a conservative and is pushing conservative values and his version of jesus. This is what draws conservatives from other countries to their side. This is why all pro-russian westerners have been conservatives and this is why i asked pro-russians in these forums if people were conservative Christians.

See, that’s where we differ. I have yet to speak to a single American conservative who is pro-Russia. I’m not saying they don’t exist, only that they would be an extreme rarity.

What I’m seeing labeled as “pro-Russian” sentiment here on the US-Right is actually still very much anti-Russia, but it is also highly questioning of all of the money being sent to Ukraine. The American propaganda is as I described in a prior post, so anything that even questions that position can’t be tolerated. The politicians have entirely too much to gain, financially, so anyone questioning our spending in Ukraine has to be labeled “pro-Russian”.

What Putin subscribes to, ideologically, has nothing in common with American conservatism. Our brand of right/conservatism, outside of the very far, but very small extreme, is “leave me alone and stay out of my life”. They only want the US to be strong so that we’re not at risk of the Russias and Chinas of the world taking us over and interfering with our lives like those fascistic, totalitarian states have proven willing to do to their own people.

Originally Posted by scorpion9 ↗

There difference between the Western and Russian propaganda is actually huge imo.
In the west, the propaganda manifests itself in massive bias to one side or telling only one side of the story. You can still search out other conflicting information. There is significant variety in western news.
Russian propaganda however, is manufactured on a state level. Some of it is made up, some is exaggerated, some is created as a diversion. Russian propaganda has no alternative. Its propaganda ministry employs thousands of "content creators" in an effort to influence the west. They admitted to influencing the US elections that way(giving Trump a win).
They have workers whose sole job is to create blog posts and fake pro-Russian comments.
Western propaganda = Strong Bias
Russian propaganda = actual propaganda, with made-up stories, false facts and carefully constructed disinformation.

I mostly agree with that, but we are seeing a change in western propaganda to a position of much less tolerance for dissenting views.

Where totalitarian nations, like Russia, China and North Korea, can get away absolutely making up everything they say, western propaganda has mostly had to rely on just selective-reporting and bias, exactly as you say.

That is slowly changing, however, as our propagandists have learned that they can silence anything counter to their bias by shutting those voices down, and banning them from the media. As they’ve seen this new power develop, they’ve become much more brazen about the lies they will tell.

[scorpion9]

Originally Posted by DrKGSmiff ↗

That was my point. You, and another poster on here have, multiple times, made the assertion that it’s a “pattern” that older conservatives are the ones who support the pro-Russian propaganda, but I’ve not seen that to be remotely true.

Sure, the very old (old enough to have become mentally infirm) may be as susceptible to propaganda as young children, but those two demographics are not part of the context here. There are not many school children nor many 80-90 year-olds in the convalescent home weighing in on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nor, I hope, participating on DR.

For the context of our discussion, I would assume “the young” to be 18-30 year-olds, and “the old” to be 50-70 year-olds. Those are the people whom we are talking with and about. My assertion is that the 40-70 year-old is MUCH less susceptible to propaganda than the 18-40 year-old simply because the 40-70 year-old has had a lifetime of experience with which to test propaganda against. The 18-40 year-old, especially the younger ones on that spectrum, aren’t as wisened, jaded, or just to the point of “don’t give a fuck”, whatever you want to call it, and are therefore much more ready to accept what their television tells them as fact.


Our schools in the US are very much falling into the trap set in our universities by the (big C)Communists, and are teaching identity politics and divisive culture to our youngest children.

Common grade-school teaching in the US now includes such useless (but usefully divisive) crap such as that a boy who is attracted to other boys, and has feminine traits, is really a girl (or one of some other 92 made up genders), and that it’s perfectly normal for him to cut off his schwanz and change his name.

They’re teaching that our police are murderous white-supremacist thugs committing genocide on brown-skinned people. Our schools, which are supposed to be teaching based on empirical facts, are teaching this even though the statistics tell no such story, but teach it as fact because it “feels” like the truth.

They’re teaching that light-skinned people are inherently racist and that they should be set to disadvantage to make up for their generations of advantage. They ignore that the very foundation of that teaching IS RACIST, by definition, because it’s useful to their divisiveness.

This is all being taught to our school children because the same people who bought into the propaganda and became pro-Russian back when Russia (and China) called itself “communist” are now the senior people within our education system, and they’re teaching the things that the USSR propaganda was filling their heads with back in the 60s and 70s. They’re carrying out the Soviet mission of divisiveness even to this day.

The pro-Russian sentiment is still very much alive and strong in the US, but it is hiding under the surface right now because our own propagandists have found it more useful to sow anti-Putin’s-Russia sentiment right now due to the money that can be grifted by sending it to Ukraine.



See, that’s where we differ. I have yet to speak to a single American conservative who is pro-Russia. I’m not saying they don’t exist, only that they would be an extreme rarity.

What I’m seeing labeled as “pro-Russian” sentiment here on the US-Right is actually still very much anti-Russia, but it is also highly questioning of all of the money being sent to Ukraine. The American propaganda is as I described in a prior post, so anything that even questions that position can’t be tolerated. The politicians have entirely too much to gain, financially, so anyone questioning our spending in Ukraine has to be labeled “pro-Russian”.

What Putin subscribes to, ideologically, has nothing in common with American conservatism. Our brand of right/conservatism, outside of the very far, but very small extreme, is “leave me alone and stay out of my life”. They only want the US to be strong so that we’re not at risk of the Russias and Chinas of the world taking us over and interfering with our lives like those fascistic, totalitarian states have proven willing to do to their own people.


I mostly agree with that, but we are seeing a change in western propaganda to a position of much less tolerance for dissenting views.

Where totalitarian nations, like Russia, China and North Korea, can get away absolutely making up everything they say, western propaganda has mostly had to rely on just selective-reporting and bias, exactly as you say.

That is slowly changing, however, as our propagandists have learned that they can silence anything counter to their bias by shutting those voices down, and banning them from the media. As they’ve seen this new power develop, they’ve become much more brazen about the lies they will tell.

I'll leave a few comments and i think we can let this topic slide since its getting a bit off topic.

My assertion is that the 40-70 year-old is MUCH less susceptible to propaganda than the 18-40 year-old simply because the 40-70 year-old has had a lifetime of experience with which to test propaganda against.

I guess this is where we have to agree to disagree.
There is a reason why young people get over their religious indoctrination quite easily, if allowed to leave their controled environment and ask questions. There is also a reason why young people almost never fall for religious indoctrination once they have developed their critical thinking skills. Older people are the opposite. They are quite likely to be fooled by religious indoctrination.

Young people tend not to form convictions and firm beliefs. Instead, they weigh pro's and con's of arguments and the end result is a weighted analog conclusion. I.e, i dont hold any belifs about a topic if i know that i dont know anything about that topic.

Older people(like my parents, relatives, aunts and uncles ) form binary beliefs...and they do it rapidly, without much questioning. For example, my mother became a firm anti-vaxer almost as soon as the pandemic began. She insisted that vaxines are evil and the covid doesnt exist. One day i decided to ask her some basic rudimentary questions like
1) What is a virus ?
She had no clue. She couldnt even guess.
2) What is a vaccine and how does it work?
Again ,no clue. None whatsoever.

And yet, inspite of her knowing that she knows nothing about the topic, her anti-vax belief was an unvawering conviction that she outspokenly spread to everyone.

I then decided to fact-check some of the stuff she sees on facebook. It was all flat out crap. "Calculations" by specialists that failed at elementary school level. Citations to papers which actually ended up claiming the exact opposite of what the "soccer mom" who spread that article claimed. And so on. Same pattern was present everywhere. And if i checked the commentators on social media...they were mostly old people.

Yes, old people do hold on to their convictions based on "experience", but when faced with new information...then they are much more helpless than young people in my oppinion. In general, the "life experience" of old people is quite insignificant, since most of it is just repetition of daily routine. What you learn between the years of lets say 40-60s is nothing compared to what someone learns in their 20-40's.

Common grade-school teaching in the US now includes such useless (but usefully divisive) crap such as that a boy who is attracted to other boys, and has feminine traits, is really a girl (or one of some other 92 made up genders), and that it’s perfectly normal for him to cut off his schwanz and change his name.

This sounds like bullshit to me. I.e it sounds exactly what a propaganda piece would claim.
Do you have print screens of textbooks that make claims like that?
This 92 genders crap is also something ive seen claimed before(putins propaganda used nr 85 i think).
The reality on this topic is that gender isn't binary...even if you wish it to be. Our software develops independently from our hardware and there is a gradient of how much the software differes from the hardware.
There are:
men who like men,
men who like both men and women
men who dont like anyone and are asexual
men who like women, but sometimes would plough a guy who looks feminine
and so on...same goes for women.
Teaching children that this is the reality is the right thing to do...because it is reality.
What isnt right, is coersing anyone into making a choice or implying that they should be someone else instead. As far as i have seen, noone has coersed anyone in the education system to make a choice or cut off their weiner.
So, it would be great to see actual textbooks that say that this is what you have to do or that there are 92 genders.
It just sounds so propagana'ish.

They’re teaching that our police are murderous white-supremacist thugs committing genocide on brown-skinned people

Id like to see some refferences to this claim as well. It sounds so flat-out exaggerated that it also seems to fall under propaganda'ish claim.
The reality is that the police in the US is not nearly as accountable than its counterpart in Europe. Some of the things that the police can do and get away with in the US is unthinkable here.
And yes, police force in general targets non-whites significantly more than whites. Its a fact, backed up by statistics. Prison sentences for black people for the same crime are significantly higher. Blacks are pulled over more often. They are frisked and checked more often and so on.
This doesnt mean that the police is white suppremacist or anything. Its just a vicious cycle with a positive feedback loop which started during segregation and kept going. Blacks get punished harder and policed more often...which means their crime stats go up...which gives reason to police them even more...which increces conviction rates...and so on.

They’re teaching that light-skinned people are inherently racist and that they should be set to disadvantage to make up for their generations of advantage. They ignore that the very foundation of that teaching IS RACIST, by definition, because it’s useful to their divisiveness.

Here, i would just mention that all races are mildly racist. I.e if presented with a question "there is a burning house with 2 kids inside, 1 is <from your race> and the other is <from some other race>...you can only save one. Both kids are strangers. Which do you save" <- people choose to save the kid thats from their race.

Also, i doubt that they teach in schools that white people should be at a disadvantage to make up for the past. Do you have any textbook print screens for that? What would the disadvantages be?
I agree that if thats the case, then its wrong. Modern day white people have no responsibility for their ancestors. We are all individuals.

See, that’s where we differ. I have yet to speak to a single American conservative who is pro-Russia. I’m not saying they don’t exist, only that they would be an extreme rarity.

You should do it the other way around. Instead of asking random conservatives if they are pro-russia, you should ask pro-russian americans if they are conservative.

[ljubodrag]

The Russian army controls a third of Bakhmut - the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Denis Yaroslavsky.

[ljubodrag]

Who did this?

[WonderMomma]

Originally Posted by ljubodrag ↗

Who did this?

This is going on in both UA and RU. During wartime. In a country where conscripts and mobilization are a thing.

I like the sense of humor of putting the "Friends" theme to it.

[scorpion9]

Originally Posted by WonderMomma ↗

This is going on in both UA and RU. During wartime. In a country where conscripts and mobilization are a thing.

I like the sense of humor of putting the "Friends" theme to it.

Meanwhile in Russia:
" I dont want to join Wagner...i want to leave"

"Ok, leave then...from this world"

* Smack to the head with a hammer *

[Roosta]

[QUOTE=DrKGSmiff;7823144]

Originally Posted by Roosta ↗

I’m pretty sure the part that made ljubodrag
uncomfortable was my pointing out that the claims that Putin is NOT a raging power-bottom are propaganda. It’s a well-known fact that Putin hasn’t once had to grunt when he poops since way back in his KGB days. The reason Putin has taken such a stand against homosexuals in Russia is that he doesn’t like the competition.