The Ukraine War

[BaaLocks]

10 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Some interesting stuff here on the military strategies of the past week - a really good point in there about the technological front

 

 

I'm not sure too many buy this "it's not gone very well in the first 96 hours" story. This is a country the size of France, if Russia wanted to take it lock, stock and barrel in that time it would have need a blitzkrieg style attack - which it clearly has not taken. The 40 mile convoy on it's way to Kyiv at the moment - however - looks like the start of that. It feels like an attempt to do this with minimal casualties has not resulted in Ukraine surrendering weakly so a much more fierce conflict is now being readied.

On this point I will offer a view. Zelensky should surrender now, move for a semi-autonomous republic style of rule, resign and save thousands of lives. There is simply no way they can win this war and all it will do is line the streets with the blood of Ukranians and Russians. It's horrible for them, but the only way for him to save the lives of his people now is to end this quickly. Then, in the years to come, push for more independent powers but play the long game and don't play the hero of my people role. Not easy, but the path of least bloodshed and escalation.

[AndyinLiverpool]

10 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I'm not sure too many buy this "it's not gone very well in the first 96 hours" story. This is a country the size of France, if Russia wanted to take it lock, stock and barrel in that time it would have need a blitzkrieg style attack - which it clearly has not taken. The 40 mile convoy on it's way to Kyiv at the moment - however - looks like the start of that. It feels like an attempt to do this with minimal casualties has not resulted in Ukraine surrendering weakly so a much more fierce conflict is now being readied.

On this point I will offer a view. Zelensky should surrender now, move for a semi-autonomous republic style of rule, resign and save thousands of lives. There is simply no way they can win this war and all it will do is line the streets with the blood of Ukranians and Russians. It's horrible for them, but the only way for him to save the lives of his people now is to end this quickly. Then, in the years to come, push for more independent powers but play the long game and don't play the hero of my people role. Not easy, but the path of least bloodshed and escalation.

Would you have offered the same view to Churchill in 1940?

[BaaLocks]

19 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Would you have offered the same view to Churchill in 1940?

If there was a 40 mile convoy coming up the Old Kent Road and all we were able to do was hand guns to anyone willing to pick one up I might have done, and I think others would have done as well. The likes of people being asked to defend Ukraine make Pike and Manwaring look like Judge Dread and Captain America - all it will bring is bloodshed in the name of what? I don't say Ukraine has to accept being part of Russia forever, but I do say grand heroics in the name of valour is not the answer - play the long game, painful though that might be for the next few years.

Again, and call me a Putin apologist if you feel that it helps but I don't think comparision with Hitler are really valid. Putin is nationalist / expansionist but he isn't a genocidal lunatic. There is no final solution or the like on the table here. For Ukranians he is the devil, and that is the least they could be expected to call him, but he is not planning gulags, death camps and gas chambers.

[FindernRam]

9 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

he isn't a genocidal lunatic

And you know this how?

[Stive Pesley]

9 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Again, and call me a Putin apologist if you feel that it helps but I don't think comparision with Hitler are really valid. Putin is nationalist / expansionist but he isn't a genocidal lunatic

That much is true - but would you not say that he has an end-game, which is to take back a number of the former soviet states?

In which case, a Ukrainian surrender might save bloodshed, but is exactly the result he wants, and would empower him to keep going into Lithuania, Latvia etc

[BaaLocks]

9 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

And you know this how?

Because he has been in power for twenty one years and has not yet set up anything like this in his own country nor once indicated that this is his intent. If our reaction is not in line with the threat, note comments made by Liz Truss, it will incite further escalation.

My point with Putin, and indeed anyone, is that instead of all the bombast we should be sitting down with him and asking "why did you feel the need to do this?" Call me what you want but surely that has to be the point of departure, understanding why people act as they do and then build around that - not for appeasement but for understanding. Threats and challenge are the last thing that will solve this crisis.

[BaaLocks]

19 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

That much is true - but would you not say that he has an end-game, which is to take back a number of the former soviet states?

In which case, a Ukrainian surrender might save bloodshed, but is exactly the result he wants, and would empower him to keep going into Lithuania, Latvia etc

Ukraine is a really specific geography, it is part of what Russia describes as 'Malorossiya' or little Russia. They feel it was given away in Soviet times and it is part of their historic geography. I only say that because I genuinely don't believe there is an appetite to invade the likes of Latvia, Uzbekistan or Moldova. Some will argue that the level of defence spending Russia has incurred means they must have return on investment and the invasion of Ukraine is that. Harshly, Latvia or other countries do not offer that opportunity.

I also think Putin himself will have been taken aback by the negative reaction he has received in Russia to his actions - this has not been welcomed as his returning Russia to former glories and he will have noted that further expansion will not embolden him at home. If you believe (and I do) he is doing this for Mother Russia then that will matter to him.

But I also thought Putin would only invade Donbass and Lugansk to 'reclaim' the Russian speaking part of the country so what do I know?

Edited March 1, 2022 by BaaLocks

[BaaLocks]

13 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I hope you can still contribute and bring your experiences to the thread. It's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to learn from having these conversations with the broad range of dheads we all are on this forum 

?

Thx, and appreciate being called a dhead - it's a fair call.

Happy to respond to comments and to hear what others have to say, just don't really have the headspace to be getting into 'but I'm right, you're wrong' debates at the moment. "You could have fooled me" goes the reaction :-).

[Anon]

6 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Because he has been in power for twenty one years and has not yet set up anything like this in his own country nor once indicated that this is his intent. If our reaction is not in line with the threat, note comments made by Liz Truss, it will incite further escalation.

My point with Putin, and indeed anyone, is that instead of all the bombast we should be sitting down with him and asking "why did you feel the need to do this?" Call me what you want but surely that has to be the point of departure, understanding why people act as they do and then build around that - not for appeasement but for understanding. Threats and challenge are the last thing that will solve this crisis.

What do you make of the argument that many world leaders don't care for or respect "understanding"? Trump seemed to make progress in North Korea with what we in the west would call undignified and reckless sabre rattling. He also claims to have threatened to "hit Moscow" if Russia invaded Ukraine. Again, seemingly reckless escalation, but I can't help notice that Ukraine didn't get invaded during Trump's administration.

[BaaLocks]

20 minutes ago, Anon said:

What do you make of the argument that many world leaders don't care for or respect "understanding"? Trump seemed to make progress in North Korea with what we in the west would call undignified and reckless sabre rattling. He also claims to have threatened to "hit Moscow" if Russia invaded Ukraine. Again, seemingly reckless escalation, but I can't help notice that Ukraine didn't get invaded during Trump's administration.

Fair point, and you could also argue Trump made progress in North Korea because he gave them time to sit and listen. Trump had a relationship with Putin, for obvious reasons, and if Johnson was a more credible candidate (and I recognise I have said that in relation to Donald Trump) he could have played that role given there is clearly influence in place between Russia and the Tory party. Trump was always careful to offer the hand of reconciliation alongside his threats, both Reagan and Thatcher did the same. We're all humans at the end of the day, we just want to know we have been heard.

Of course, it's a fair claim that Putin would only use it as further opportunity to twist the end game - maybe fair point. But the view of many Russians is that whatever they do there are sanctions, whatever they offer there is distrust, wherever they look they see the West doing the very same thing in their own backyard that they are accused of themselves. And let's not forget that in the past 20 years Russia has had one incursion in Georgia (plus involvement in Syria) - in the same time US has either directly invaded or supported military action in Afghanistan, Nepal, Maghreb, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Uganda, Syria, Libya and Iran (yes, I did Google that). But it's always OK and understood for America to do it in the name of world peace.

So what to do in that situation? Sit back and pretend it isn't happening or fight fire with fire?

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

If there was a 40 mile convoy coming up the Old Kent Road and all we were able to do was hand guns to anyone willing to pick one up I might have done, and I think others would have done as well. The likes of people being asked to defend Ukraine make Pike and Manwaring look like Judge Dread and Captain America - all it will bring is bloodshed in the name of what? I don't say Ukraine has to accept being part of Russia forever, but I do say grand heroics in the name of valour is not the answer - play the long game, painful though that might be for the next few years.

Again, and call me a Putin apologist if you feel that it helps but I don't think comparision with Hitler are really valid. Putin is nationalist / expansionist but he isn't a genocidal lunatic. There is no final solution or the like on the table here. For Ukranians he is the devil, and that is the least they could be expected to call him, but he is not planning gulags, death camps and gas chambers.

It isn't a comparison between Hitler and Putin - it was between Churchill and Zelensky. Both knew they were speaking not only to their present generations but to future ones too. Meekly (or even pragmatically) surrendering now could doom generations of their citizens to tyranny. Going down fighting might inspire future generations.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

Interesting stuff trending on French media/tinternet. Interview of the then prime minister in 2018 (Edouard Philippe) when asked a Q he replied perhaps in 5 years time i will be asked about not spending more on medical research and a virus has appeared no one knows about or our defence budget when Russia has invaded Poland.

He might have got the country wrong (for the time being i guess) but his crystal ball is pretty impressive!

[BaaLocks]

20 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

It isn't a comparison between Hitler and Putin - it was between Churchill and Zelensky. Both knew they were speaking not only to their present generations but to future ones too. Meekly (or even pragmatically) surrendering now could doom generations of their citizens to tyranny. Going down fighting might inspire future generations.

Or you go back to what Ukraine was less than ten years ago - with a Russia approved leader in place (Yanukovich) so that Russia has confidence it's interests will be considered. This was acceptable to all, including most Ukranians, before the US funded the Orange Revolution and Kohlomoyski funded the Azov Battalion. It wasn't tyranny, by any means (it was corruption, it was a more limited freedom, but it was not tyranny).

Or you dig in and thousands, maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, die as a result. And you still lose. Enjoy explaining to future generations that it was the right thing to do.

Look, I'm not saying lie down and get walked over. I'm saying that, for those very future generations, a long game approach will limit the bloodshed most.

Edited March 1, 2022 by BaaLocks

[TigerTedd]

So it seems to be a bunch of rich men in Russia want the old soviet ways back. Similar to trump really, and make America great again. This is just make Russia great again.

even brexit was a version of make Britain great again.

But I think the younger generations don’t care about that. That’s clear from the general demographics that voted for brexit and trump. And I think it’s true in Russia, based on who’s protesting the war. 

russians have had it pretty good in the past 20-odd years, so why would a 20 something Russian feel the need to rock the boat. They’re not particularly loving life now, and it’s not the west they’re blaming. 

sometimes I genuinely feel the only way this world will get better is when we wait for the older generations, with their historical prejudices and axes to grind, and rose tinted memories of when it was all better, to shuffle off this mortal coil, and leave it to the kids to sort out. 

In fact, you probably shouldn’t get a vote, or work in politics, after a certain age, because you’re making decisions on long term things that won’t effect you half as much as it will effect your kids. 

[1of4]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

I'm not sure too many buy this "it's not gone very well in the first 96 hours" story. This is a country the size of France, if Russia wanted to take it lock, stock and barrel in that time it would have need a blitzkrieg style attack - which it clearly has not taken. The 40 mile convoy on it's way to Kyiv at the moment - however - looks like the start of that. It feels like an attempt to do this with minimal casualties has not resulted in Ukraine surrendering weakly so a much more fierce conflict is now being readied.

On this point I will offer a view. Zelensky should surrender now, move for a semi-autonomous republic style of rule, resign and save thousands of lives. There is simply no way they can win this war and all it will do is line the streets with the blood of Ukranians and Russians. It's horrible for them, but the only way for him to save the lives of his people now is to end this quickly. Then, in the years to come, push for more independent powers but play the long game and don't play the hero of my people role. Not easy, but the path of least bloodshed and escalation.

Why should Ukraine surrender? Putin could easily pull his troops back into Russia which will definitely save lifes. 

Why should the people of Ukraine accept life under a dictator. Something they have made quite clear they do not want. So if Putin did achieve his aims. Do you think the people of Ukraine will stand idly by or would the try to carry on with some sort of resistance, with will result in the continued loss of life

You and a few other posters have given verious reasons as to why Putin is waging war on another country. The whataboutery you and others have spouted regarding the west, doesn't justify what Putin is doing.

Yes the countries in the west have have done, doing thing that were, are wrong. Many politicians in the west are probably as corrupt as Putin. But as I've said, none of this makes what Putin is doing, morally or legally right.

So I await for anyone to give a genuine and legitimate reason, that allows Russia to invade Ukraine.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

48 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Or you go back to what Ukraine was less than ten years ago - with a Russia approved leader in place (Yanukovich) so that Russia has confidence it's interests will be considered. This was acceptable to all, including most Ukranians, before the US funded the Orange Revolution and Kohlomoyski funded the Azov Battalion. It wasn't tyranny, by any means (it was corruption, it was a more limited freedom, but it was not tyranny).

Or you dig in and thousands, maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, die as a result. And you still lose. Enjoy explaining to future generations that it was the right thing to do.

Look, I'm not saying lie down and get walked over. I'm saying that, for those very future generations, a long game approach will limit the bloodshed most.

They're an independent country. They shouldn't need a 'Russian approved leader'

[BaaLocks]

16 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Why should Ukraine surrender?

Because thousands of people will die - on both sides.

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Because thousands of people will die - on both sides.

I bet surrendering to the Germans would have saved a few lives too

[cstand]

47 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Why should Ukraine surrender? Putin could easily pull his troops back into Russia which will definitely save lifes. 

Why should the people of Ukraine accept life under a dictator. Something they have made quite clear they do not want. So if Putin did achieve his aims. Do you think the people of Ukraine will stand idly by or would the try to carry on with some sort of resistance, with will result in the continued loss of life

You and a few other posters have given verious reasons as to why Putin is waging war on another country. The whataboutery you and others have spouted regarding the west, doesn't justify what Putin is doing.

Yes the countries in the west have have done, doing thing that were, are wrong. Many politicians in the west are probably as corrupt as Putin. But as I've said, none of this makes what Putin is doing, morally or legally right.

So I await for anyone to give a genuine and legitimate reason, that allows Russia to invade Ukraine.

 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/ukraine-russian-invasion-putin-explainer-2518946

https://www.military.com/equipment/weapons/why-russias-hypersonic-missiles-cant-be-seen-radar.html/amp

The only way to stop his new Nukes is to destroy them at launch. 
 

If Ukraine joined EU/NATO Putin will see this as a threat to his nuclear arms advantage because NATO could deploy a missile defence system and nuclear arms.

Since Ukraine is a very big country hundreds could deployed on Russia border.

There has been no solution to the Ukraine crisis since 2014

Edited March 1, 2022 by cstand

[Leeds Ram]

3 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

If there was a 40 mile convoy coming up the Old Kent Road and all we were able to do was hand guns to anyone willing to pick one up I might have done, and I think others would have done as well. The likes of people being asked to defend Ukraine make Pike and Manwaring look like Judge Dread and Captain America - all it will bring is bloodshed in the name of what? I don't say Ukraine has to accept being part of Russia forever, but I do say grand heroics in the name of valour is not the answer - play the long game, painful though that might be for the next few years.

Again, and call me a Putin apologist if you feel that it helps but I don't think comparision with Hitler are really valid. Putin is nationalist / expansionist but he isn't a genocidal lunatic. There is no final solution or the like on the table here. For Ukranians he is the devil, and that is the least they could be expected to call him, but he is not planning gulags, death camps and gas chambers.

The last bit is true he's not a genocidal lunatic but he is a dangerous expansionist leader who needs to be stopped. The Russian military are not making the gains they wanted nor are they being greeted as liberators which many have commented Putin thought may have happened. If anything this invasion highlights how weak, unorganised and out of touch the Russian military are. Ukraine despite reports are simply the latest in a line of moves from Putin to expand territory and reimagine Soviet power. The fight for Ukraine cannot therefore be considered as just a Ukrainian one but rather a genuine fight for the future of Eastern Europe. You'd just let Putin bear his teeth and destroy a country's sovereignty, it's hardly reassuring for anyone in Finland, Poland, Romania, Estonia etc. 

Btw in 1940, the UK had such little firepower or armour (most was lost at Dunkirk) that we largely relied upon small arms and called up the old home guard to defend against a possible imminent invasion.