Image

Russia invades Alaska: UN, Allies urge restraint

11/25/2024, 11:31 am
User avatar
For months, Russian president Vladimir Putin and his foreign secretary, Sergey Lavrov, have strenuously denied any intentions of conducting offensive military operations in Alaska. Nevertheless, Russian troops have landed in Unalaska, Sitka, and Prudhoe Bay opening up three axes of attack. At the same time, kalibr, kinzhal, and iskander missiles, all capable of carrying nuclear warheads, have been launched into Juneau and Anchorage destroying residential areas and power stations.

President Putin stated in a message broadcast on Russian media that the multi-pronged "special peacekeeping operation" was nonaggressive in nature and absolutely necessary because of "intolerable" western provocation that threatened Russia's security. "This is purely a matter of internal Russian politics," warned Putin, "and any interference with our peacekeeping operation can and will result in nuclear retaliation." Russian news host, Vladimir Solovyov, has announced that in one more week, Alaska will once again belong to Russia.

Russian secretary to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, stated that the goals of the operation were to rescue Alaska's Russian descended citizens from western oppression and to clear Alaska of Nazi extremists. "Once these objectives are obtained," said Nebenzya, "we will of course be more than willing to discuss a peaceful resolution to the issue." UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres, has urged the United States to use restraint and refrain from any action that would potentially escalate the conflict. Staunch NATO allies, Viktor Orban and Recep Erdogan, have urged halting all military cooperation with the United States until all parties can agree upon a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

To gain historical context to the situation, Tucker Carlson interviewed eminent historian and Churchill scholar, Darryl Cooper. Cooper pointed out how America's dubious purchase of Alaska from Alexander II in 1867 amounted to "virtual extortion" as the Johnson administration "stole Alaska for a mere seven million dollars." Cooper went on to point out that Russia has had a historical claim to Alaska since 1784, and that America behaved arrogantly and provocatively by seizing Alaska. "Fascinating," squeaked Carlson who then went on to interview leading military analyst, Colonel MacGregor, who has written books. MacGregor pointed out how the Russian landing parties are supported by the "formidable" carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, which MacGregor described as impregnable. Kuznetsov is under tow, listing 15 degrees to port, and has had yet another fire break out on board, but is being used as a platform to launch cruise missiles into Alaskan cities. "There is nothing in our inventory that even compares with the Kuznetsov," said MacGregor, "so it's best to admit when we're beaten and make peace." Carlson concluded the interview by quoting Patrick Henry, '"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?' I think Patrick Henry would say that's a no brainer. No true patriot would provoke an adversary. Our founders would have chosen peace at any price."

After expressing concern that no help was forthcoming from the US military, Alaska's governor, Mike Dunleavy, has ordered all of Alaska's National Guard assets into action to hold off the Russian invasion. Dunleavy's response to the crisis has touched off outrage across various media channels. Joe Rogan commented, "Screw this guy! He wants to start World War Three!" Charlie Kirk commented, "Dear Russian people, we just want peace. It's only the war worshippers who want to prolong this conflict in Alaska. No more forever wars!" An editorial piece put it this way, "If Russia threatens us with nuclear blackmail, we give in - period. It's what Reagan would have done."

In Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene has called for defunding Alaska. "To reiterate, Alaska is not our 51st state," said Greene. "What does everybody think MAGA means? Make Alaska Great Again? I don't think so." Greene gestured to a map of the United States, "Lookit, Alaska is this tiny little country under California next to Hawaii. Is it worth starting World War III over that? Not one more penny for Alaska!" Other lawmakers have weighed in pointing out that the Aleutians are lost, and that Alaska has to face reality and cede some land so that a demilitarized zone could be set up in Alaska's western territories. "No one's denying Alaska's right to defend itself," said a congressman on condition of anonymity, "but Alaska must not do anything that would escalate the conflict like fighting back."

Governor Dunleavy is preparing to address a joint session of Congress in hopes of securing military support for Alaska.
Back to top
11/25/2024, 4:54 pm
User avatar
Feeling your anguish all the way down in Texazistan. With a senator like John Cornyn using his power to vote against Texans because he and Mitch already had a plan laid out for their life in public service before Trumputler as President laid out his MAGA Plan.

Alaska and Texazistan are close state siblings in marvelous ways. We both know this aggression will not stand, man... like forever, like that stain on the rug because some non house trained varmit for hire pee'd on it. No, Komissar al-Blogunov, Trumputler will make sure your rug is replaced, and Russia will pay for it, and may even produce it. Who knows, Al B??

And speaking of Trumputler, you know Texazistan is ponying up with land for deporting illegals. Maybe Alaska can offer acreage, as well. and win the attention of MTG, or Harriet Hagman, Or, Tulsi, even.

Wish there were links, but that's on me to search out the truth for the jackalope's self, However, it so resembles invasion of Texazistan, each of your observations must be true.

to a jackalope.
Back to top
11/25/2024, 7:15 pm
User avatar
jackalopelipsky wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 4:54 pm
 ...it so resembles invasion of Texazistan, each of your observations must be true.
Comrade 'pelipsky, I have to disagree. An analogy is only valid if the similarities between the actual domain are congruent with those of the analogy. In the case of Alaska and Ukraine there is no comparison whatsoever.

Alaska is not an independent nation and—as part of the United States—an attack on Alaska would be an act of war against the United States as a whole and would invoke a U.S. response with obligatory NATO involvement. It would be a war of one major nuclear-armed power against another.

By comparison, Ukraine is an independent nation without mutual defense agreements and not part of NATO. The war there is one major nuclear power (with allies) against a weaker non-nuclear power with sympathetic but non-obligatory support.   

By no stretch of the imagination does the analogy work. Perhaps a better analogy would be less far-fetched fiction and more historical fact, like the Nazi annexation of Poland, which Germany conducted with indefensible justifications exactly as Russia's invasion has been.

Incidentally, there is a small and insignificant group of Russian nationalists who have been trying to push the idea that Alaska was stolen by the U.S. but few are saluting that flag.
Back to top
11/25/2024, 8:04 pm
User avatar
Isn't the point of satire to stretch a point to make a point?
Back to top
11/25/2024, 11:52 pm
User avatar
Most Equally Esteemed Comrades,

PROG WAY OFF

Please indulge me while I vent one of my pet peeves.
Colonel Obyezyana wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 7:15 pm

By no stretch of the imagination does the analogy work. Perhaps a better analogy would be less far-fetched fiction and more historical fact, like the Nazi annexation of Poland, which Germany conducted with indefensible justifications exactly as Russia's invasion has been.

With apologies Comrade Colonel.  I know you did not intentionally cover up for Soviet aggression. 

All my life I have heard the BIG LIE that Nazi Germany, and Nazi Germany alone, started WWII in Europe.  The unspoken part is that the USSR invaded Poland 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded.  They were both supposed to invade Poland at the same time, but while the Nazis were organized and punctual, the Soviets were a bit disorganized and couldn't meet the deadline because the Red Army was more of a mob than an organized fighting force at that point.  The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact outlined the agreed start of the operation to overrun and divide Poland between the Nazis and Soviets.  The Nazis so believed in the agreement that when their army overran the agreed on frontier, they withdrew to the prearranged border as the Red Army approached.  Funny, the Soviet involvement is never mentioned in any public reference to the start of WWII.  I wonder why?

The invasion of Alaska by Russia was the original plan formulated by Tzar Alexander II.  After the Crimean War (1853-1856) things were still a little touchy between the British Empire and the Russian Empire.  Russia was a bit short of capital and REALLY wanted to bolster their army.  Also, Canada, a part of the British Empire bordered Alaska and would have made a terrific invasion point had the Brits wanted to poke the Bear again.  However the United States had just shown the world how to wage a horrific total war and the Russians figured the Brits would not want to tangle with them.  The Tzar figured he could sell Alaska to the US, it wasn't really good for much at that time other than furs.  The US would stand as an obstacle between the Brits and the Russian Far East.  The Tzar was convinced that Russia could take Alaska back any time they wanted.  He never got around to it. 

PROG BACK ON

Of course the USSR had to invade Poland after the evil Nazis!  How else were they going to stop the Nazi aggressors?  The fact that they were able to begin offensive operations a mere 16 days after the surprise Nazi invasion shows the degree of nimble readiness of the Red Army at that time. 

Red Salmon

 
Back to top
11/26/2024, 5:13 am
User avatar
Komissar al-Blogunov wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 11:31 am
For months, Russian president Vladimir Putin and his foreign secretary, Sergey Lavrov, have strenuously denied any intentions of conducting offensive military operations in Alaska. Nevertheless, Russian troops have landed in Unalaska, Sitka, and Prudhoe Bay opening up three axes of attack. At the same time, kalibr, kinzhal, and iskander missiles, all capable of carrying nuclear warheads, have been launched into Juneau and Anchorage destroying residential areas and power stations.

President Putin stated in a message broadcast on Russian media that the multi-pronged "special peacekeeping operation" was nonaggressive in nature and absolutely necessary because of "intolerable" western provocation that threatened Russia's security. "This is purely a matter of internal Russian politics," warned Putin, "and any interference with our peacekeeping operation can and will result in nuclear retaliation." Russian news host, Vladimir Solovyov, has announced that in one more week, Alaska will once again belong to Russia.

Russian secretary to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, stated that the goals of the operation were to rescue Alaska's Russian descended citizens from western oppression and to clear Alaska of Nazi extremists. "Once these objectives are obtained," said Nebenzya, "we will of course be more than willing to discuss a peaceful resolution to the issue." UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres, has urged the United States to use restraint and refrain from any action that would potentially escalate the conflict. Staunch NATO allies, Viktor Orban and Recep Erdogan, have urged halting all military cooperation with the United States until all parties can agree upon a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

To gain historical context to the situation, Tucker Carlson interviewed eminent historian and Churchill scholar, Darryl Cooper. Cooper pointed out how America's dubious purchase of Alaska from Alexander II in 1867 amounted to "virtual extortion" as the Johnson administration "stole Alaska for a mere seven million dollars." Cooper went on to point out that Russia has had a historical claim to Alaska since 1784, and that America behaved arrogantly and provocatively by seizing Alaska. "Fascinating," squeaked Carlson who then went on to interview leading military analyst, Colonel MacGregor, who has written books. MacGregor pointed out how the Russian landing parties are supported by the "formidable" carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, which MacGregor described as impregnable. Kuznetsov is under tow, listing 15 degrees to port, and has had yet another fire break out on board, but is being used as a platform to launch cruise missiles into Alaskan cities. "There is nothing in our inventory that even compares with the Kuznetsov," said MacGregor, "so it's best to admit when we're beaten and make peace." Carlson concluded the interview by quoting Patrick Henry, '"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?' I think Patrick Henry would say that's a no brainer. No true patriot would provoke an adversary. Our founders would have chosen peace at any price."

After expressing concern that no help was forthcoming from the US military, Alaska's governor, Mike Dunleavy, has ordered all of Alaska's National Guard assets into action to hold off the Russian invasion. Dunleavy's response to the crisis has touched off outrage across various media channels. Joe Rogan commented, "Screw this guy! He wants to start World War Three!" Charlie Kirk commented, "Dear Russian people, we just want peace. It's only the war worshippers who want to prolong this conflict in Alaska. No more forever wars!" An editorial piece put it this way, "If Russia threatens us with nuclear blackmail, we give in - period. It's what Reagan would have done."

In Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene has called for defunding Alaska. "To reiterate, Alaska is not our 51st state," said Greene. "What does everybody think MAGA means? Make Alaska Great Again? I don't think so." Greene gestured to a map of the United States, "Lookit, Alaska is this tiny little country under California next to Hawaii. Is it worth starting World War III over that? Not one more penny for Alaska!" Other lawmakers have weighed in pointing out that the Aleutians are lost, and that Alaska has to face reality and cede some land so that a demilitarized zone could be set up in Alaska's western territories. "No one's denying Alaska's right to defend itself," said a congressman on condition of anonymity, "but Alaska must not do anything that would escalate the conflict like fighting back."

Governor Dunleavy is preparing to address a joint session of Congress in hopes of securing military support for Alaska.

Comrade, the Australian government has decided to back Alaska, against Russian aggression, and has decided to send a shipment of depleted uranium tipped boomerangs to the ANG to aid in their fight against the aggressor.

Don't believe the Russian propaganda that they are simply ensuring that there are no NATO or American military or CIA facilities in Alaska. That would be absurd!
Back to top
11/26/2024, 5:17 am
User avatar
Komissar al-Blogunov wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 8:04 pm
 Isn't the point of satire to stretch a point to make a point?
Comrade, despite all efforts of The Party™, it's been proven impossible to enforce a sense of irony upon the proletariat. A lack of beet vodka tends to make them grumpy.
 
Back to top
11/26/2024, 5:36 am
User avatar
Colonel Obyezyana wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 7:15 pm
jackalopelipsky wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 4:54 pm
 ...it so resembles invasion of Texazistan, each of your observations must be true.
Comrade 'pelipsky, I have to disagree. An analogy is only valid if the similarities between the actual domain are congruent with those of the analogy. In the case of Alaska and Ukraine there is no comparison whatsoever.

Alaska is not an independent nation and—as part of the United States—an attack on Alaska would be an act of war against the United States as a whole and would invoke a U.S. response with obligatory NATO involvement. It would be a war of one major nuclear-armed power against another.

By comparison, Ukraine is an independent nation without mutual defense agreements and not part of NATO. The war there is one major nuclear power (with allies) against a weaker non-nuclear power with sympathetic but non-obligatory support.   

By no stretch of the imagination does the analogy work. Perhaps a better analogy would be less far-fetched fiction and more historical fact, like the Nazi annexation of Poland, which Germany conducted with indefensible justifications exactly as Russia's invasion has been.

Incidentally, there is a small and insignificant group of Russian nationalists who have been trying to push the idea that Alaska was stolen by the U.S. but few are saluting that flag.

The jackalope is grieved to point out the analogy was between the States of Alaska and Texas. (Texazistan). Both states are under invasion without any Federal Government response pursuant to The Constitution you mentioned. The discrepancy should be alarming, but evidently it’s no big whoop. Texazistan even shares the delusion it was stolen from Mexico, just as Alaska’s story it was stolen from Russia as you mention.

There was no comparison to Ukraine.
Back to top
11/26/2024, 5:42 am
User avatar
jackalopelipsky wrote: ↑
11/26/2024, 5:36 am
Colonel Obyezyana wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 7:15 pm
jackalopelipsky wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 4:54 pm
 ...it so resembles invasion of Texazistan, each of your observations must be true.
Comrade 'pelipsky, I have to disagree. An analogy is only valid if the similarities between the actual domain are congruent with those of the analogy. In the case of Alaska and Ukraine there is no comparison whatsoever.

Alaska is not an independent nation and—as part of the United States—an attack on Alaska would be an act of war against the United States as a whole and would invoke a U.S. response with obligatory NATO involvement. It would be a war of one major nuclear-armed power against another.

By comparison, Ukraine is an independent nation without mutual defense agreements and not part of NATO. The war there is one major nuclear power (with allies) against a weaker non-nuclear power with sympathetic but non-obligatory support.   

By no stretch of the imagination does the analogy work. Perhaps a better analogy would be less far-fetched fiction and more historical fact, like the Nazi annexation of Poland, which Germany conducted with indefensible justifications exactly as Russia's invasion has been.

Incidentally, there is a small and insignificant group of Russian nationalists who have been trying to push the idea that Alaska was stolen by the U.S. but few are saluting that flag.

The jackalope is grieved to point out the analogy was between the States of Alaska and Texas. (Texazistan). Both states are under invasion without any Federal Government response pursuant to The Constitution you mentioned. The discrepancy should be alarming, but evidently it’s no big whoop. Texazistan even shares the delusion it was stolen from Mexico, just as Alaska’s story it was stolen from Russia as you mention.

There was no comparison to Ukraine.
Nobody ever mentions that Mexico was stolen from Spain.
 
Back to top
11/26/2024, 10:54 am
User avatar
Alaska thanks you, Komrade Kapitan. However, Dmitry Peskov has just stated that the presence of depleted uranium tipped boomerangs presents a new escalation and their delivery would cross a red line provoking a nuclear response. "Unlike the last twenty or so times," warned Peskov, "we're not bluffing!"
Back to top
11/26/2024, 11:05 am
User avatar
jackalopelipsky wrote: ↑
11/26/2024, 5:36 am
Colonel Obyezyana wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 7:15 pm
jackalopelipsky wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 4:54 pm
 ...it so resembles invasion of Texazistan, each of your observations must be true.
Comrade 'pelipsky, I have to disagree. An analogy is only valid if the similarities between the actual domain are congruent with those of the analogy. In the case of Alaska and Ukraine there is no comparison whatsoever.

Alaska is not an independent nation and—as part of the United States—an attack on Alaska would be an act of war against the United States as a whole and would invoke a U.S. response with obligatory NATO involvement. It would be a war of one major nuclear-armed power against another.

By comparison, Ukraine is an independent nation without mutual defense agreements and not part of NATO. The war there is one major nuclear power (with allies) against a weaker non-nuclear power with sympathetic but non-obligatory support.   

By no stretch of the imagination does the analogy work. Perhaps a better analogy would be less far-fetched fiction and more historical fact, like the Nazi annexation of Poland, which Germany conducted with indefensible justifications exactly as Russia's invasion has been.

Incidentally, there is a small and insignificant group of Russian nationalists who have been trying to push the idea that Alaska was stolen by the U.S. but few are saluting that flag.

 ...The Constitution you mentioned.
Where did I mention The Constitution?
 
Back to top
11/26/2024, 11:20 am
User avatar
Red Salmon wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 11:52 pm
 Most Equally Esteemed Comrades,

PROG WAY OFF

Please indulge me while I vent one of my pet peeves.
Colonel Obyezyana wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 7:15 pm

By no stretch of the imagination does the analogy work. Perhaps a better analogy would be less far-fetched fiction and more historical fact, like the Nazi annexation of Poland, which Germany conducted with indefensible justifications exactly as Russia's invasion has been.
With apologies Comrade Colonel.  I know you did not intentionally cover up for Soviet aggression. 

All my life I have heard the BIG LIE that Nazi Germany, and Nazi Germany alone, started WWII in Europe.  The unspoken part is that the USSR invaded Poland 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded.  They were both supposed to invade Poland at the same time, but while the Nazis were organized and punctual, the Soviets were a bit disorganized and couldn't meet the deadline because the Red Army was more of a mob than an organized fighting force at that point.  The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact outlined the agreed start of the operation to overrun and divide Poland between the Nazis and Soviets.  The Nazis so believed in the agreement that when their army overran the agreed on frontier, they withdrew to the prearranged border as the Red Army approached.  Funny, the Soviet involvement is never mentioned in any public reference to the start of WWII.  I wonder why?

The invasion of Alaska by Russia was the original plan formulated by Tzar Alexander II.  After the Crimean War (1853-1856) things were still a little touchy between the British Empire and the Russian Empire.  Russia was a bit short of capital and REALLY wanted to bolster their army.  Also, Canada, a part of the British Empire bordered Alaska and would have made a terrific invasion point had the Brits wanted to poke the Bear again.  However the United States had just shown the world how to wage a horrific total war and the Russians figured the Brits would not want to tangle with them.  The Tzar figured he could sell Alaska to the US, it wasn't really good for much at that time other than furs.  The US would stand as an obstacle between the Brits and the Russian Far East.  The Tzar was convinced that Russia could take Alaska back any time they wanted.  He never got around to it. 

PROG BACK ON

Of course the USSR had to invade Poland after the evil Nazis!  How else were they going to stop the Nazi aggressors?  The fact that they were able to begin offensive operations a mere 16 days after the surprise Nazi invasion shows the degree of nimble readiness of the Red Army at that time. 

Red Salmon
4 PROG YELLOW.jpg
Comrade, I always appreciate a salmony perspective. I focused on Germany's premeditated rape of Poland because only later did the USSR opportunistically use the Non-Agression Pact as an excuse to grab some sloppy seconds. 

 
Back to top
11/26/2024, 11:33 am
User avatar
Red Salmon wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 11:52 pm
 Most Equally Esteemed Comrades,

PROG WAY OFF

Please indulge me while I vent one of my pet peeves...

Red Salmon
Image

 
I can't recommend William Shirer's masterpiece Rise and Fall of the Third Reich highly enough. Shirer is a reporter from the old school: multilingual, well read, articulate, did extensive research, and understood the historical context of the events of the war. He goes into extensive detail about how Hitler was still not strong enough militarily to risk war with the USSR and had to have Stalin's permission to invade Poland.  He was within 50 yards of Hitler when the French were forced to sign a humiliating armistice in the famous railway car of Compiegne, but had to leave in late 1940 as German censorship significantly hindered his reporting and the Gestapo was allegedly planning to arrest him for espionage.  It's unlikely you'll be able to put that book down once you start into it.
hitlstal.jpg

These murdering totalitarians discovered they had much in common with each other before Hitler spoiled the romance.  After the first attempt on his life in Mexico, Trotsky commented to the Mexican authorities that the Gestapo and the GPU cooperated in carrying out international and plausibly deniable assassinations - something the FSB excels at to this day (pro tip - always keep an eye up around Russian high rises).  Shirer documents how the concentration camp system was inspired by the GULAGs and how the German show trials, actually called "People's Courts," used later in the war after Operation Barbarossa were borrowed from Stalin's show trials.
Back to top
11/26/2024, 1:19 pm
User avatar
BTW, Ward Carroll is a former F-14 radar intercept officer whose commentary is deeply informative. In this video, he interviews Justin Bronk, who's a professor at the Royal United Services Institute.  Bronk, as you'll see, has an encyclopedic knowledge of weapons systems and geopolitics, and while he avoids predictions, he does lay out a very sober assessment of the terrain in which Trump hopes to bring Russia and Ukraine to an agreement.


In other news, Operator Starsky (informative, often snarky, but always interesting) reports that Russian leadership has no intention of even decelerating the war effort.  If so, this is possibly Putin's grossest miscalculation to date.  And that's saying something given the colossal blunders he's already made.
Back to top
11/26/2024, 7:17 pm
User avatar
Komissar al-Blogunov wrote: ↑
11/25/2024, 8:04 pm
 Isn't the point of satire to stretch a point to make a point?
Exposing absurdity by being absurd is not approved by The Party™. The Party™ cannot, absurdly, allow absurdity to be approved. When The Party™ points at you, you are not approved to point back. The Current Truth™ is all that is approved, Do not forget this, comrade.
 
Back to top
11/26/2024, 11:30 pm
User avatar
down load celeb opi.jpg
Back to top
11/27/2024, 8:24 pm
User avatar
trashmouth wrote: ↑
11/26/2024, 11:30 pm
Image

Trashmouth your dog data dump is fixed for the next year.

https://www.jokergreeting.com/products/ ... ful-places

Be careful, comrades and don’t step in the downloaded data dumping that’s happening out there…even in beautiful places. Do not be in a beautiful place with a shaved headed woman, unless you always dreamed of being one of the Three Stooges.
Back to top

 
POST REPLY

Return to “People's Blog”