Not at all comparable. And as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, testing rival airspaces with fighter planes has been a common even banal tactic used by a number of country’s airforces, certainly including the US who has employed it countless times.
I like how you say even the us as if most of us don’t view the us as a brutal militaristic bully that is constantly escalating tensions and provoking War.
I’m sure NATO armies that never saw actual combat are going to do great against a seasoned army that’s been destroying NATO proxy for the past three years.
What army? They are down to their last reserves, have few modern tanks left, and even their air force is running on empty. If this wasn’t the case, they would be in Kiev right now.
Again, why aren’t they in Kiev? Here’s the thing. Russia is a big country with a lot of people in it. This is no surprise that they have a large army, I wasn’t disputing that. What I am disputing is that they have any professional soldiers left after 3 years of fighting. What I’m saying is that they have mostly conscripts. That their modern front line tanks are basically gone, or else they would be using them and not resorting to antiques.
They are not in Kiev because their goal is destruction of the AFU. Once the AFU collapses, Russia will be able to take whatever territory they want when they dictate the terms of surrender. Meanwhile, the only western source that shows any methodology has this to say about Russian casualties https://en.zona.media/article/2025/09/12/casualties_eng-trl
Of course, there’s nothing that can be said to you that would change your views since you’re clearly living in a fantasy world. You’ll just have to wait and see how this ends for yourself. Prepare to be very surprised.
Your comment is a classic example of satirical mockery used as a potent rhetorical device. It is not a factual assessment but a psychological operation aimed at framing the opponent (Russia) in a specific, belittling light. Its primary purpose is to influence the audience’s perception and emotional state rather than to inform.
It creates immediate cognitive dissonance by juxtaposing the grave, threatening concept of a military invasion with absurdly inadequate and non-threatening imagery (“dudes on motorcycles,” “scooters,” “Lada Nivas without doors”). This contrast is jarring and humorous, making the perceived threat (Russia’s military) seem ridiculous and incapable.
The core goal is to diminish the enemy in the eyes of the audience. By reducing a nation’s military to a clownish parade of obsolete and laughable equipment, it attacks not just its capability, but its dignity and gravitas. This is a powerful tool for undermining morale on one side and boosting it on the other.
It is a highly effective piece of persuasive communication. While it contains zero factual analysis of military capabilities, it is psychologically astute and stylistically crafted to achieve a specific goal: to mock, diminish, and frame an adversary in a way that boosts the morale of its intended audience and undermines the perceived power of the opponent.
Its power lies not in its truthfulness, but in its emotional resonance and shareability as a weapon of rhetorical warfare in the modern information landscape.
The combat footage that you see is exactly the combat footage that the NATO powers want you to see, and no more. You’re being fed war propaganda, not sober reality.
Light 'em up!
That would be a very serious escalation of the conflict.
Violating a nation’s airspace with warplanes is also an escalation.
Not at all comparable. And as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, testing rival airspaces with fighter planes has been a common even banal tactic used by a number of country’s airforces, certainly including the US who has employed it countless times.
I like how you say even the us as if most of us don’t view the us as a brutal militaristic bully that is constantly escalating tensions and provoking War.
Yeah. Russia will send 3 dudes on motorcycles, a platoon of scooters and 3 lada nivas without doors for mine clearing. NATO should be terrified.
I’m sure NATO armies that never saw actual combat are going to do great against a seasoned army that’s been destroying NATO proxy for the past three years.
What army? They are down to their last reserves, have few modern tanks left, and even their air force is running on empty. If this wasn’t the case, they would be in Kiev right now.
^ this is your brain on propaganda kids
meanwhile in the real world https://odessa-journal.com/public/oleksandr-syrskyi-russia-outnumbers-ukrainian-forces-three-to-one-overall-and-on-the-main-fronts-by-4-to-6-times
Again, why aren’t they in Kiev? Here’s the thing. Russia is a big country with a lot of people in it. This is no surprise that they have a large army, I wasn’t disputing that. What I am disputing is that they have any professional soldiers left after 3 years of fighting. What I’m saying is that they have mostly conscripts. That their modern front line tanks are basically gone, or else they would be using them and not resorting to antiques.
They are not in Kiev because their goal is destruction of the AFU. Once the AFU collapses, Russia will be able to take whatever territory they want when they dictate the terms of surrender. Meanwhile, the only western source that shows any methodology has this to say about Russian casualties https://en.zona.media/article/2025/09/12/casualties_eng-trl
The fact that you think Russian modern tanks are gone shows that you have absolutely no clue regarding the subject. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/returning-tank-production-soviet-era-levels-russia-over-3000
Of course, there’s nothing that can be said to you that would change your views since you’re clearly living in a fantasy world. You’ll just have to wait and see how this ends for yourself. Prepare to be very surprised.
Sounds like a whole lot of Russian propaganda to me.
Your comment is a classic example of satirical mockery used as a potent rhetorical device. It is not a factual assessment but a psychological operation aimed at framing the opponent (Russia) in a specific, belittling light. Its primary purpose is to influence the audience’s perception and emotional state rather than to inform.
It creates immediate cognitive dissonance by juxtaposing the grave, threatening concept of a military invasion with absurdly inadequate and non-threatening imagery (“dudes on motorcycles,” “scooters,” “Lada Nivas without doors”). This contrast is jarring and humorous, making the perceived threat (Russia’s military) seem ridiculous and incapable.
The core goal is to diminish the enemy in the eyes of the audience. By reducing a nation’s military to a clownish parade of obsolete and laughable equipment, it attacks not just its capability, but its dignity and gravitas. This is a powerful tool for undermining morale on one side and boosting it on the other.
It is a highly effective piece of persuasive communication. While it contains zero factual analysis of military capabilities, it is psychologically astute and stylistically crafted to achieve a specific goal: to mock, diminish, and frame an adversary in a way that boosts the morale of its intended audience and undermines the perceived power of the opponent.
Its power lies not in its truthfulness, but in its emotional resonance and shareability as a weapon of rhetorical warfare in the modern information landscape.
My brother in Shiva, have you been following the combat footage on telegram? What I said is fact, not really opinion.
The combat footage that you see is exactly the combat footage that the NATO powers want you to see, and no more. You’re being fed war propaganda, not sober reality.