Ukraine
-
@reprobate said in Ukraine:
Winger, there wouldn't be young men being slaughtered if Putin hadn't invaded Ukraine.
It's kinda that simple mate.What do you think would happen if Russia invited Mexico (who just happened to have a pro-Russian Govt) to join them in a military arrangement. After Russia had promised the US they wouldn't do this
And if Mexico were killing people in Mexico who identified as US etc.
You know what they US would do
All the West had to do was comply (or instruct Ukraine to comply) with the Minsk agreement. That Merkel said they never had any intention of doing it seems
-
Fair call. I withdraw and apologise.
I didn't ask you to apologize. All you had to do was remove your post. As I did mine. It's a good TSF rule so why not comply with it? Instead of cluttering up this thread (a good thread so far) with this stuff
I didn't ask you to delete your post.
Deleting a post everybody has already read, that nobody is going back to check if it's deleted, and not telling anyone, including the poster in question, doesn't achieve anything
I'm good with an apology on record in lieu of a stealth deletion. But you do you.
I'm happy to leave it at that. Let's get back to justifying the war.
Edit: PS I appreciate your effort.
-
What do you think would happen if Russia invited Mexico (who just happened to have a pro-Russian Govt) to join them in a military arrangement. After Russia had promised the US they wouldn't do this
That would never happen. Russia is a glowing example of a peace-loving, true democracy while the US is a corrupt, capitalist state run by rich, lying elites propped up by a lying media and populated by stupid people. That's correct isn't it?
You know what they US would do
Kidnap thousands of Mexicans and take them to the US? That would be the ultimate war crime. Imagine the sense of sheer horror a Mexican would have at the thought of living in the US!
All the West had to do was comply (or instruct Ukraine to comply) with the Minsk agreement.
Those evil, western capitalist imperialists! Fancy allowing those uppity Ukrainians to decide their foreign policy for for themselves.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Ukraine:
Fancy allowing those uppity Ukrainians to decide their foreign policy for for themselves.
Of course they do
-
All the West had to do was comply (or instruct Ukraine to comply) with the Minsk agreement. That Merkel said they never had any intention of doing it seems
The MInsk agreements were between Ukraine and Russia and not with the West or Merkel's Germany. You'd have to be gullible in the extreme to expect any country to comply with an agreement they weren't signatories to.
-
@nostrildamus said in Ukraine:
I'm curious. Does Winger really believe Putin is elected in a democratic election and the results aren't coerced or partially rigged?
I don't know. But I certainly would trust anything about this subject in the elite controlled Western media. Nothing at all. Western media just lie nonstop. They get caught out but then change for a short spell and then go back to lying again.
And Ukraine have suspended elections. Is this a democracy? or a flawed democracy
What about the US? They are trying to throw Trump into prison. or remove him from the ballot. They imprisoned his supporters on dubious charges. They ban groups on social media. Do I believe Biden got millions more votes than Obama when he was clearly gone before the election. No. Do I believe then they closed down the last election that funny stuff didn't go down. No. Yet the Western media point the finger at Russia
I could go on. Included about the 'democratic' EU where the Govt is appointed not elected.
I can also understand why Putin has done what he's done. He took control of SOME of the media when he first came to power. Now he has strengthened this control. Any smart leader would do the same. Especially after awful communism and Yeltsin. Putin, I believe, wants to make Russia great again. He can't do this with an out-of-control media. And would the people supoort a leader like Putin. Yes, esp when he has the media behind him. So, a flawed democracy. Just like much of the West.
Putin increased his control of the media.
Western powers increased their control of the media?
So it is smart if Putin does it but not the West?As to Trump, that is OT, definitely. He has his own social media (still running I believe and on the edge of a big merger?) and a YouTube channel (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64993603) and he is in the West so by your logic one shouldn't believe him or his supporters.
-
Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of state international broadcaster RT, was quick to ridicule Western reaction.
"I won't even begin to explain to them that everyone has long forgotten [Navalny], that there was no point in killing him, especially before the elections, that it would be beneficial to completely opposite forces," she said.
Sounds like an explanation (good or bad) to me.
-
[mod edit]removed the response to off topic posts[/edit]
Anyway back to the Ukraine.
Seems Russia can't force a military victory - which is somewhat embarrassing, still it's not like the Ukraine can either.
And it seems the West can't cripple Russia economically.
End result is that just a lot of people are going to die, unless someone can start negotiating or "the west" intervenes militarily. Yet neither of those appear to be options.
-
@Windows97 said in Ukraine:
Seems Russia can't force a military victory - which is somewhat embarrassing, still it's not like the Ukraine can either.
Less embarrassing for Ukraine tho, given the starting point of both nations in terms of materiel and manpower. Russia with 10 times as much in most cases, and their failure to utterly crush Ukraine shows that their training from the top level down has been a stark failure. Too much cronyism?
The old Stalin maxim of "Quantity has a quality all its own" didn't work. I reckon a lot of military strategists across the world also got a bit of a wakeup call when man-portable AT was so effective against heavy armour, but again that could come down to poor tactical execution.
-
The old Stalin maxim of "Quantity has a quality all its own" didn't work.
The war isn't over yet.
I reckon a lot of military strategists across the world also got a bit of a wakeup call when man-portable AT was so effective against heavy armour, but again that could come down to poor tactical execution.
Only if they didn't know what AT does to tanks. It's also difficult to manoeuvre without fuel, something even the Nazis discovered.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
The old Stalin maxim of "Quantity has a quality all its own" didn't work.
The war isn't over yet.
I meant in the short term ie. the massive Russian bear didn't crush the Ukrainian Nightingale in mere weeks or days.
Industrially Russia will have more staying power, depending how long Western suppliers can fill the void.
(Side note: I know the Taipans were a bit shit, but why not give them away?)
Only if they didn't know what AT does to tanks.
Unsupported tanks: very effective. Anyone with a modicum of modern combined arms tactics: less so. Expensive lesson.
Fuel point is valid, and points to a complete failure of strategy. Supply lines have been critical since before internal combustion.
-
Less embarrassing for Ukraine tho, given the starting point of both nations in terms of materiel and manpower.
It's mostly embarrassing for the West. They have supplied weapons and money and they seem to be heading for a big defeat
As Kennedy said in one of his videos. Russia wasn't serious about winning this war quickly. They mainly wanted to force Ukraine and the West back to the negotiating table. This will likely be achieved with Russia having all the winning cards. And also gaining a small amount of territory
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
The old Stalin maxim of "Quantity has a quality all its own" didn't work.
The war isn't over yet.
I meant in the short term ie. the massive Russian bear didn't crush the Ukrainian Nightingale in mere weeks or days.
Industrially Russia will have more staying power, depending how long Western suppliers can fill the void.
(Side note: I know the Taipans were a bit shit, but why not give them away?)
Quite possibly because of the avionics suite not being cleared by our allies to hand over. That's just a guess, but why should we expend the cost of getting them to Ukraine?
Only if they didn't know what AT does to tanks.
Unsupported tanks: very effective. Anyone with a modicum of modern combined arms tactics: less so. Expensive lesson.
Even as combined arms, you still need to be able to identify, close with and defeat the enemy who have the element of surprise, choice of ground and range advantage. Modern AT is laser-guided employing thermographic cameras or W-band radar making them fire and forget so you can move to a new location.
Fuel point is valid, and points to a complete failure of strategy. Supply lines have been critical since before internal combustion.
My point being if the Wehrmacht during Op Barbarossa ran out of fuel while advancing, anyone can. It's one thing to say "logistics", another entirely to get all the planning right. If you expect to be able to reach a certain point, secure it and enable resupply, only to find yourself bogged down and unable to progress it's easy for armchair generals such as ourselves to point out the flaws. When entirely capable commanders of the best trained, well equipped and lead army of the time falls victim, perhaps it isn't as easy.
Same thing happened during Desert Storm when the expected opposition failed to materialise so advanced quicker than expected. It takes quite some discipline to wait when every fibre of your body wants to continue the momentum.
-
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
As Kennedy said in one of his videos. Russia wasn't serious about winning this war quickly.
Yeah, I call revisionist bullshit on that. If you wanted to force your adversary to the negotiating table, you'd do it from a position of genuine strength.
Not with leaders who still have a soul. I know it's rare today but maybe that's why Putin is hated in the West. He might actually have some regard for the people. And not just serve the mostly empty elite
So, he wanted to negotiate but the West forced him into a destructive war. Where he put Russia first. The people not his back pocket. But, Russia still didn't go in boots and all.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Yeah, I call revisionist bullshit on that. If you wanted to force your adversary to the negotiating table, you'd do it from a position of genuine strength.
And that's what I think the worst thing about this war is, Russia hasn't gone far enough to force a military response from the west (if ever such a response was ever going to happen).
And I severely doubt the Ukraine will ever be in a position of strength to force Russia to the table.
It's stuck in an endless stalemate with the West throwing money and chest thumping from the safest of distances without getting their hands dirty.
-
@Windows97 said in Ukraine:
Russia hasn't gone far enough to force a military response from the west (if ever such a response was ever going to happen).
You mean all in not just supplying money and weapons. Sending in real people with a diversity manual too. I'm sure this will help