The Ukraine War

[BaaLocks]

18 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Conscription is always a bad thing. However in extreme circumstances it may be necessary, think WW2 and Ukraine today.

Sadly many Ukrainians in the south and east were killed by the invading force, before they could even be conscripted!

All very easy to say till someone puts a gun in your hand and tells you to kill someone with it, before they kill you. I just can't imagine what that must be like. TBH - I admire anyone who does it, I always believed I would be physically unable.

[Eddie]

23 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Conscription is always a bad thing. However in extreme circumstances it may be necessary, think WW2 and Ukraine today.

Sadly many Ukrainians in the south and east were killed by the invading force, before they could even be conscripted!

In an attritional war where 'feet on the ground' are the expendable resource of a larger (and arguably more powerful) foe, conscription is the only alternative to obliteration.

[Ramarena]

28 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

All very easy to say till someone puts a gun in your hand and tells you to kill someone with it, before they kill you. I just can't imagine what that must be like. TBH - I admire anyone who does it, I always believed I would be physically unable.

As I say, conscription is a bad thing and I fully understand those that refuse.

But so is being killed by an army invading your country.

No easy choices when someone else puts you in this position.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ramarena

[Ram-Alf]

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

He probably should also have written 'Don't bother invading Russia'.  After all more than 80% of German soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front.  Was it Max Hastings, I can't remember, some distinguished military historian anyway, who said that Germany had the best army (not navy obviously) during the war but the worst leadership.  Hitler, never seemed to listen to his generals and made a whole series of strategic blunders, playing right into Allied hands.  None worse than invading the Soviet Union. 

I hope the current Russian army is far less motivated than their Red Army predecessors.  The 'Great Patriotic War' seems to be engrained in the Russian psyche.  Even to the extent that now, when Putin wants to demonize an enemy, he calls them 'fascist' to recall the great enemy from the past.  And that's what he, and the state controlled media in Russia are doing, portraying Ukraine as some kind of fascist state, allied with the West threatening Russia once more. Given the nature of the state control over the media in Russia now, I guess many Russians actually believe it, and actually think that the Russian Army is fighting Fascism all over again.  And this is despite the fact that if you were to look up the definition of a fascist, you'd find Putin ticking far more of the boxes than someone like Zelensky, a lot more.  This whole war is being sold to the Russian people on a mountain of lies and twisted propaganda and it's truly depressing. 

Apologies, I appeared to have wandered off your point there.  

Nowt wrong with that post Highgate ?

[BaaLocks]

18 hours ago, Highgate said:

He probably should also have written 'Don't bother invading Russia'.  After all more than 80% of German soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front.  Was it Max Hastings, I can't remember, some distinguished military historian anyway, who said that Germany had the best army (not navy obviously) during the war but the worst leadership.  Hitler, never seemed to listen to his generals and made a whole series of strategic blunders, playing right into Allied hands.  None worse than invading the Soviet Union. 

I hope the current Russian army is far less motivated than their Red Army predecessors.  The 'Great Patriotic War' seems to be engrained in the Russian psyche.  Even to the extent that now, when Putin wants to demonize an enemy, he calls them 'fascist' to recall the great enemy from the past.  And that's what he, and the state controlled media in Russia are doing, portraying Ukraine as some kind of fascist state, allied with the West threatening Russia once more. Given the nature of the state control over the media in Russia now, I guess many Russians actually believe it, and actually think that the Russian Army is fighting Fascism all over again.  And this is despite the fact that if you were to look up the definition of a fascist, you'd find Putin ticking far more of the boxes than someone like Zelensky, a lot more.  This whole war is being sold to the Russian people on a mountain of lies and twisted propaganda and it's truly depressing. 

Apologies, I appeared to have wandered off your point there.  

Think you're pretty bang on with that assessment - sadly, I do have to say that we are also being played in the other direction. The pitch is that poor little Zelensky just got invaded for doing nothing, as I have said before he and others before him have been played and twisted to heighten the tension (Zelensky's whole election campaign was based on ending the Donbass conflict - it was all very much "Get Brexit Done" in tone - he was funded by an extreme right wing Ukranian oligarch and actions since the Minsk protocol taken by him were far from conciliatory in tone).

And we the West are also being spun lines about how we have to prevent Russia recreating the Soviet Union and how this is democracy against evil. Boris Johnson naming support of Ukraine as one of his key three achievements in office when giving his leaving speech was the sort of deflecting statement we have been fed over and over (tbf - the other two, getting Brexit done and achieving the highest majority since Thatcher were both lies so let's not put too much weight on that).

[Crewton]

Turns out Putin didn't need to invade to get what he supposedly wanted, the warmongering genocidal PoS :

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/?taid=632182fe51baff00017319e1&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[Alph]

He didn't need to invade. He shouldn't have invaded. And once he chose to invade he needed a quick victory. 

But that article also neglects to mention other reasons Putin gave doesn't it? 

It doesn't mention his goal of liberating East Ukraine, removing a government that allows groups like the Azov Battalion to operate in Donbass and providing relief to Crimea who were becoming isolated via trade, transport and of course the dam that was built. 

How much involvement Russia had in the referendums held, how much influence they had on causing civil unrest (even so far as framing Ukraine it's been said) is up for debate. 

And what Putin has done can not be supported imo. I can't think of a way to justify it. 

But as discussed earlier in the thread, it doesn't mean he doesn't have some valid concerns. 

You can't deny the existence of the Azov Battalion. You can't deny that referendums were held and rejected in Donbass and Crimea. You can't deny NATO expansion. 

This is where people call you a Putin apologist and it's simply not the case. I don't look at the carnage in Ukraine and think lolz. Its horrific. 

But I do think the West/NATO and particularly America plays a role in the build up to the invasion. A role that's undermining Russia. It's a role America has played before. Being the completely innocent bystander who is forced to step in to help weaken an enemy. 

It's textbook Roman Empire with America. Poke those with a stick, alliance with them, military operation to defend the good guys. 

He's a maniac, Putin. And if it wasn't for fear of a Soviet Union day dreamer taking his place I would say his death makes the world a much better place. But I think he has genuine points that he's been making for many years that we have dismissed as the angry ranting of an evil dictator. 

His invasion is actually working pretty well for Western/NATO/American expansion and influence. Since he's painted himself exactly as we're asked to believe. Now nothing he's ever said will be taken on board and America can continue its definitley not aggressive and entirely defensive influence. God bless America, land of the free etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Crewton]

Putin must be the biggest patsy going, if he's simply doing what the USA wants him to do. By giving in to his apparent concern over NATO expansion since the collapse of the USSR, he's managed to frighten previously neutral neighbours into applying to join NATO. The Finns and Swedes would almost never have chosen to if he hadn't proved that even being neutral wasn't the safe option. 

And given the proven levels of interference of Moscow in Western democracies in recent years, entirely to our detriment and personal cost, I'm surprised that some people are still pushing "it's the West's fault" narrative. Putin has been waging war on us since he came to power and, prior to this invasion, our response has been so weak and uncoordinated (thanks in large part to the aforementioned interference) that commentators were bemoaning the ease with which he was playing us. Little did anyone expect that he would be the author of his own potential downfall. 

[Alph]

56 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Putin must be the biggest patsy going, if he's simply doing what the USA wants him to do. By giving in to his apparent concern over NATO expansion since the collapse of the USSR, he's managed to frighten previously neutral neighbours into applying to join NATO. The Finns and Swedes would almost never have chosen to if he hadn't proved that even being neutral wasn't the safe option. 

And given the proven levels of interference of Moscow in Western democracies in recent years, entirely to our detriment and personal cost, I'm surprised that some people are still pushing "it's the West's fault" narrative. Putin has been waging war on us since he came to power and, prior to this invasion, our response has been so weak and uncoordinated (thanks in large part to the aforementioned interference) that commentators were bemoaning the ease with which he was playing us. Little did anyone expect that he would be the author of his own potential downfall. 

Not necessarily it's West fault. Just that the West particularly USA are aggressive. They just are. And yes, Putin has been waging war since he came to power. But this war started before Putin came to power. 

This is where someone says "Putin apologist". But that's as daft as me saying USA forced Russia to act or they'd be surrounded by NATO and even their own Ukrainian brothers would lean to the West and provide a corridor of influence for America. 

I'm not blaming USA and The West for the way Russia has responded. I'm just saying that there is actually a threat to respond to. Rather than mad Vlad wants the Soviet Union back and that's that. 

I'm sure there are many in Russia who want to see the Soviet Union glory days. I'm sure there are those that want to move to a new age maybe. Where Russia can be a major power and influence with it's allied European countries? I'd like to think so. 

My dream would be a United States of Europe without Russia or America influence on everything. But it won't happen. 

America will continue to expand its influence. Continue the proxy wars. Continue its own propaganda machine. It will continue to invest in alliances with neighbours of nations it considers a threat. It will continue to be in armed conflict after armed conflict. Until it threatens too far China or Iran or the next nation to feel threatened. Then they can be the baddies.

From the Nation that brought us Hiroshima, Gulf of Tonkin, Nagasaki, Agent Orange, Napalm Strikes, proxy wars in the Middle East, full support for the "defence" of Israel, countless drone strikes, full scale invasions into the Middle East I find it amazing that they continue to play the good guys. 

It sounds as if i'm defending Russia. I'm not. It's a fascinating place with a fascinating history and fascinating people. It's not the victim here. 

What you say about Russia's interference I agree with. But I'd say it x2 about USA. Far too much influence. Far too much power. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Alpha

[Crewton]

14 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Not necessarily it's West fault. Just that the West particularly USA are aggressive. They just are. And yes, Putin has been waging war since he came to power. But this war started before Putin came to power. 

This is where someone says "Putin apologist". But that's as daft as me saying USA forced Russia to act or they'd be surrounded by NATO and even their own Ukrainian brothers would lean to the West and provide a corridor of influence for America. 

I'm not blaming USA and The West for the way Russia has responded. I'm just saying that there is actually a threat to respond to. Rather than mad Vlad wants the Soviet Union back and that's that. 

I'm sure there are many in Russia who want to see the Soviet Union glory days. I'm sure there are those that want to move to a new age maybe. Where Russia can be a major power and influence with it's allied European countries? I'd like to think so. 

My dream would be a United States of Europe without Russia or America influence on everything. But it won't happen. 

America will continue to expand its influence. Continue the proxy wars. Continue its own propaganda machine. It will continue to invest in alliances with neighbours of nations it considers a threat. It will continue to be in armed conflict after armed conflict. Until it threatens too far China or Iran or the next nation to feel threatened. Then they can be the baddies.

From the Nation that brought us Hiroshima, Gulf of Tonkin, Nagasaki, Agent Orange, Napalm Strikes, proxy wars in the Middle East, full support for the "defence" of Israel, countless drone strikes, full scale invasions into the Middle East I find it amazing that they continue to play the good guys. 

It sounds as if i'm defending Russia. I'm not. It's a fascinating place with a fascinating history and fascinating people. It's not the victim here. 

What you say about Russia's interference I agree with. But I'd say it x2 about USA. Far too much influence. Far too much power. 

Of course the US wants to be top dog in the world, and has been historically guilty of actions well away from its "backyard" on many occasions, but I think these days their influence and interference level is dwarfed by what China is doing in the developing world - and they don't take kindly to any of their "partners" criticising their policies, as illustrated by their reactions to criticism from Australia for example, and in Hong Kong. Countries are selling their souls to the CPOC and they haven't a clue what's in store for them should they ever default. 

 

[Alph]

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Of course the US wants to be top dog in the world, and has been historically guilty of actions well away from its "backyard" on many occasions, but I think these days their influence and interference level is dwarfed by what China is doing in the developing world - and they don't take kindly to any of their "partners" criticising their policies, as illustrated by their reactions to criticism from Australia for example, and in Hong Kong. Countries are selling their souls to the CPOC and they haven't a clue what's in store for them should they ever default. 

 

Agree completely. 

I hate this sense of being on the edge. Not helped by motormouth Truss getting in. 

It feels like since WW2 the big players have had just a nice amount of time to build their invisible empires and push just enough to step on the toes of the next would be empire. 

I'm glad Russia has become bogged down with its invasion. It does feel like Ukraine are doing the world a favour. 

Maybe being dramatic. But it just feels like we're on the brink of war again to me. Hopefully it can be averted or it's just my mad rambling. 

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Think you're pretty bang on with that assessment - sadly, I do have to say that we are also being played in the other direction. The pitch is that poor little Zelensky just got invaded for doing nothing, as I have said before he and others before him have been played and twisted to heighten the tension (Zelensky's whole election campaign was based on ending the Donbass conflict - it was all very much "Get Brexit Done" in tone - he was funded by an extreme right wing Ukranian oligarch and actions since the Minsk protocol taken by him were far from conciliatory in tone).

And we the West are also being spun lines about how we have to prevent Russia recreating the Soviet Union and how this is democracy against evil. Boris Johnson naming support of Ukraine as one of his key three achievements in office when giving his leaving speech was the sort of deflecting statement we have been fed over and over (tbf - the other two, getting Brexit done and achieving the highest majority since Thatcher were both lies so let's not put too much weight on that).

Yes, but not to the same extent. We know that our governments are not to be taken at their word either and our media are often biased (sometimes ridiculously so).  But it seems to me that propaganda is at a whole different level in Russia.  If you are broadcasting or printing anything that is contrary to Putin's official narrative then watch out.  And whatever press freedoms existed before the war, have now disappeared. 

That's not the case in the West, it's still quite safe to be openly critical of our governments and their policies. That's a huge difference. 

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Yes, but not to the same extent.

Agreed, not to the same extent but at least everyone knows - inside and out Russia - how the game is played. I've said it a million times, so let's make it a million and one, Uncle Sam is pulling all our strings on the other side of the fence and we are happily dancing the tune. That is as true of Rupert Murdoch as it is of Boris Johnson as it is of Zelensky and the only thing that potentially makes it even more concerning is that so many believe it is not the case.

[Leeds Ram]

This war for the Ukrainians is about the survival of their nation state, nothing more or less than that. Of course they're going to fight until the very last man. A political leader going to fight every day on the front lines would be height of idiocy but Zelensky has done a great job. Geo-politically Putin has totally miscalculated this invasion. He assumed that the Ukrainian leadership would pack up and get out, that the US and NATO would sit back and watch chaos unfold as they did in Afghanistan and the countries near them would get the willies and stop 'NATO expansion' (there's really no such thing as it is portrayed by some) in its tracks.

The reality is precisely the opposite. Putin is misguided in thinking Russia remains a great power in anything (an economically and politically deformed mess of a country) in anything but in nuclear weapon levels. They're now faced with a choice of embracing total war or humiliation, personally I can only see this going one way and that's a tactical retreat and a peace treaty. Those who fear the previous soviet union's guile and resources in combat misunderstand that a lot of the soviet union's forces and power came from those not in what we consider Russia today. 

The idea that this is really about democratic referendums in the donbass is nonsense. Putin's been more than happy annexing territory for over a decade, terror bombing blockaded starving people in Syria and has no regard for democracy at home as he happily kills off anyone who dares challenge him. Lavrov has recently even been threatening the menacing might of Moldova because they obviously pose such a threat... using exactly the same tactics Russia's been applying in Ukraine. International Relations are tricky, unpredictable and largely based on guesses and intuition, the idea that anyone is 'pulling the strings' behind an imaginary curtain has a deformed and unrealistic view of how politics is managed (chaotically by humans not necessarily adequately equipped for the job). 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[uttoxram75]

5 hours ago, Alpha said:

My dream would be a United States of Europe without Russia or America influence on everything.

That was their biggest fear, that was why both funded anti-europe propaganda which led to us leaving. A group of wealthy, democratic nations with the ability to stop the worst excesses of America & Russia, even China would have been wary.

[Archied]

20 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

This war for the Ukrainians is about the survival of their nation state, nothing more or less than that. Of course they're going to fight until the very last man. A political leader going to fight every day on the front lines would be height of idiocy but Zelensky has done a great job. Geo-politically Putin has totally miscalculated this invasion. He assumed that the Ukrainian leadership would pack up and get out, that the US and NATO would sit back and watch chaos unfold as they did in Afghanistan and the countries near them would get the willies and stop 'NATO expansion' (there's really no such thing as it is portrayed by some) in its tracks.

The reality is precisely the opposite. Putin is misguided in thinking Russia remains a great power in anything (an economically and politically deformed mess of a country) in anything but in nuclear weapon levels. They're now faced with a choice of embracing total war or humiliation, personally I can only see this going one way and that's a tactical retreat and a peace treaty. Those who fear the previous soviet union's guile and resources in combat misunderstand that a lot of the soviet union's forces and power came from those not in what we consider Russia today. 

The idea that this is really about democratic referendums in the donbass is nonsense. Putin's been more than happy annexing territory for over a decade, terror bombing blockaded starving people in Syria and has no regard for democracy at home as he happily kills off anyone who dares challenge him. Lavrov has recently even been threatening the menacing might of Moldova because they obviously pose such a threat... using exactly the same tactics Russia's been applying in Ukraine. International Relations are tricky, unpredictable and largely based on guesses and intuition, the idea that anyone is 'pulling the strings' behind an imaginary curtain has a deformed and unrealistic view of how politics is managed (chaotically by humans not necessarily adequately equipped for the job). 

Yes and the cia didn’t swamp America with illegal drugs to secretly finance weapons to other countries in political conflict ,arming the side they wanted to win ,,, nope your right ,this stuff is just made up and never happens 

[Ram-Alf]

7 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

That was their biggest fear, that was why both funded anti-europe propaganda which led to us leaving. A group of wealthy, democratic nations with the ability to stop the worst excesses of America & Russia, even China would have been wary.

Having a United States of Europe(Armed Forces)would be pollical nonsense...but not in the mind of Macron, I'll ask this, Who runs the Forces, Who gives the word to strike, Will it be committee led as in Brussels and Strasberg where making a decision takes months to get 28 Nations to agree, Would there be an abstention where if one Nation disagrees then there's no complete agreement so no defence/attack.

The Italians once attack is ordered will be selling white flags, The French will say "non" we work a 35 hour week, The Germans will be too busy printing forms after forms, The Spanish will have longer "siestas", Luxembourg will shout "we're neutral", Eire will want to get across the Northern Irish border, Greece to busy filling their multiple tax forms in, Netherlands citing one of their ancestors was the King of England so they've now found they have dual nationality, Portugal are all asleep, The Balkan States can start their wars again, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary will wait and see how much money is in it for them.

Nope it would never work ?   

[uttoxram75]

2 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Having a United States of Europe(Armed Forces)would be pollical nonsense...but not in the mind of Macron, I'll ask this, Who runs the Forces, Who gives the word to strike, Will it be committee led as in Brussels and Strasberg where making a decision takes months to get 28 Nations to agree, Would there be an abstention where if one Nation disagrees then there's no complete agreement so no defence/attack.

The Italians once attack is ordered will be selling white flags, The French will say "non" we work a 35 hour week, The Germans will be too busy printing forms after forms, The Spanish will have longer "siestas", Luxembourg will shout "we're neutral", Eire will want to get across the Northern Irish border, Greece to busy filling their multiple tax forms in, Netherlands citing one of their ancestors was the King of England so they've now found they have dual nationality, Portugal are all asleep, The Balkan States can start their wars again, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary will wait and see how much money is in it for them.

Nope it would never work ?   

? The trading bloc was the threat Alf, nowt to do with the military.

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

The reality is precisely the opposite. Putin is misguided in thinking Russia remains a great power in anything (an economically and politically deformed mess of a country) in anything but in nuclear weapon levels. They're now faced with a choice of embracing total war or humiliation, personally I can only see this going one way and that's a tactical retreat and a peace treaty. Those who fear the previous soviet union's guile and resources in combat misunderstand that a lot of the soviet union's forces and power came from those not in what we consider Russia today. 

That's a scary thought though, what will Putin do if it's clear he is facing a military defeat?  Use the state propaganda machine to convince Russians that all the objectives were achieved?  He still knows that in the rest of the world he will look defeated and weak.  And apparently, if there is one thing that Putin will not tolerate is looking defeated or weak, in Russia, or on the world stage.  I fear that if he is faced with humiliation he may well do something catastrophically stupid.   

[Leeds Ram]

11 minutes ago, Highgate said:

That's a scary thought though, what will Putin do if it's clear he is facing a military defeat?  Use the state propaganda machine to convince Russians that all the objectives were achieved?  He still knows that in the rest of the world he will look defeated and weak.  And apparently, if there is one thing that Putin will not tolerate is looking defeated or weak, in Russia, or on the world stage.  I fear that if he is faced with humiliation he may well do something catastrophically stupid.   

Honestly, there are probably a handful of people who have a reliable opinion on that topic and I'm not one of them. I'd like to think if Putin were to do anything too stupid (such as launching a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine) then internally he'd be deposed.