Is Ukraine about to have a war?

[beardy]

Originally Posted by admikar

So, if Russians get out of Ukraine we call it a game?

Should we also invade USA for harboring hundreds of Nazi's after WWII (and a host of other countries for that matter, Russia included)? And before you go about "those were only scientist and forced to work for Nazi's" that's a bull. Lets not forget bunch of big USA companies working with Nazi Germany before and during the War

Ad hominem comments really expose the weakness of your arguments.

[admikar]

Originally Posted by beardy

Ad hominem comments really expose the weakness of your arguments.

Yeah, I know they are weak, just because I don't allign with you.
BTW, I was doing the same thing that he did in his response to a post that didn't allign with his views of good and wrong.

[petit plateau]

Originally Posted by Fitter2

Can anyone with fewer than 10 posts, chipping in on this or similar threads, be assumed to be a Putin factory troll?

I'm afraid that these days you need to raise the bar to 50-60 posts and 5-6 years. Regrettably the troll factory has been curating a lot of accounts all over the internet for many years.

[NutLoose]

Whew... I'm safe comrade..

[beardy]

Originally Posted by admikar

Yeah, I know they are weak, just because I don't allign with you.
BTW, I was doing the same thing that he did in his response to a post that didn't allign with his views of good and wrong.

It's not a question of aligning. It's a question of relevance and relativism. The discussion is about the morality and ethics of Russia and its armed forces and nothing else.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by mahogany bob

WHAT TO DO ??
With the war now in it’s 3rd month and in danger of escalating to armageddon it is time for the WEST to face the FACTS - no matter how unpleasant they are

1. There is no way that Ukraine can WIN the war - prolonged western help will only prolong the agony.
2. The chance of PUTIN being overthrown from within is next to NIL His popularity has increased since the war started.
3. ECONOMIC sanctions will NOT work.
4. NATO is seen as the enemy - Russians do not want more American missiles on their borders.Bellicose threats of expansion only throws petrol on the flames!
5. There is NO danger of Russia attacking a strong NATO country. Why would they?

1. Ukraine has beaten Russia at every turn so far, and has a better long-term outlook than Russia has. The tech and financial sanctions have yet to fully impact Russia, and that will impact their capacity to prosecute a war. I wouldn't be writing the requiem as yet, it may be for the wrong party.
2. Putin oversees a controlled media and polls have the same value as a Putin promise. Probably good for feeding dandilions. Has Putin told the truth to his citizens? If he had, and they were still cheering, then maybe your comment would hold water, but there is no credible uncompromised source that suggests Putin is popular. He is utterly linked to Ukraine, so a defeat or an extended conflict causing damage on the Russian economy is owned by him, and his minions will have a fair amount of distance to set between themselves and the coming anger of the population.
3. Sanctions are a part solution, and they are causing problems to Russia.
4. So Russia moving borders to NATO is different from NATO moving a border to Russia, how?
5. Nor is there a risk of a NATO country attacking Russia. Russia is well equipped to continue living the dream of own goals that have been part of Russian heritage since Olaf the Hairy was looking wistfully at the Varangian maidens.... back in 862.

Russia doesn't need help from others in making a mess of things, they are eminently capable of messing up their own playpen in solitude. Lots of plots for Checkov and Tolstoy, the trouble usually is that every Russian story starts horribly, gets progressively worse, and the ending makes you wistful for the happier character of Dante Alighieri, at least Dante kept warm in winter.

[uxb99]

"Please get your history right. N.Vietnam started to try to impose their version of Marxist-Leninism on their southern neighbours (a corrupt lot, but that's no excuse) The legitimate government invited the US in as advisers, and it escalated from there. There was no invasion, US soldiers didn't set foot in N. Vietman"

One rather distasteful act by the Americans however was convincing the guys in charge of South Vietnam (names escape me) to allow the Americans to impose their own leaders in exchange for a life in America.
When they agreed America promptly had them shot, washing their hands of the affair of course.
As for the war in Vietnam (and the French didn't exactly have a blameless occupation either what with heads on spikes and the like) wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin incident just an excuse for the Americans to put boots on the ground?

The sad truth is if Ukraine hadn't resisted we wouldn't have given a damn about Putin. Unfortunately for us they didn't. Morality rarely comes into war until it suits the politics.

[Sue Vętements]

Originally Posted by mahogany bob

1. There is no way that Ukraine can WIN the war

lol - Ukraine is already winning the war

[NutLoose]

Popping down to your local Careers Information Centre aka Military Enlistment Centre, Russian style.... Love it..

Twitter

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by uxb99

As for the war in Vietnam (and the French didn't exactly have a blameless occupation either what with heads on spikes and the like) wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin incident just an excuse for the Americans to put boots on the ground?

There were already thousands of Americans in Viet Nam, had been a slowly growing presence since around 1960. JFK's "bear any burden" was a change in policy from Ike's "not worth major military ops, don't go there, stick to advise and assist" policy. I've got an old friend who flew Marine H-34's (helicopters)(<== look, aviation content!) in Viet Nam before 1964. Before Ap Bac. Before Diem went bye bye. To give you an idea of scope and scale: there were over 16,000 US troops in South Viet Nam in 1963. What Gulf of Tonkin did was give LBJ the political leverage to increase that amount by an order of magnitude. The rest, as they say, is history.

Originally Posted by WideScreen

I think, this is a very good analysis. Use all the Western located old-style Russian military equipment in Ukraine to exhaust and deplete the Russian army.

You should have stopped there, I think.

Then come in with a coalition of Western forces (not Nato) and roll-up the Russians in Ukraine. Potentially even take-over Moscow itself.

There is not the political will to do that in any of the Western capitals, not to mention you create your own problems, a la Iraq 2003 - 2010, if you try that. Dietary Suggestion: stop spiking your tea with gin.

Roll up Belarus and bring a democracy there, the people want it (in contrast to all the other Western invasions in ME/NA).

Once again, invading Belarus? No political will in Europe nor in NATO to do that. Further dietary advice: also stop spiking your tea with vodka, I saw what you did there after you put the gin bottle away!

Somewhere during that process, Putin will likely die of his cancer. Which might be expedited, when the narcotics and Oxygen tubes are swapped, just before his upcoming surgery.

His health may fail, but any assassination attempt need not be sponsored in the West. He has his own problems within, leave it to them.

Putin did pull that much power to himself, there will be nobody "in-charge", when Putin dies (see the plans to have the FSB head temporary replace Putin during his surgery, instead of the legal required prime minister). As such, after Putin, nobody will be prepared to push the Nukes button (apart from the manual background process involved to extend the button push into a missile launch also refusing to act).

On this aspect, how much power he has centralized in his own person (the modern day Tsar Vladimir, you might say) seems to be true, which will make for chaos once he's ousted or offed, and we saw how that played out as USSR fell apart. (heck, when Saddam was removed, the civil war in Iraq started and it went on for some years despite coalition efforts to arrest it).
That chaos, when Vlad goes away, might happen again or a leader who can prevent that may arise. Sometimes, 'cometh the hour cometh the man' takes some surprising forms. No idea who that might be, but I do not doubt that there are some candidates lurking.

For admikar: dietary advice is to consider not spiking the borscht with vodka.

For mahogany bob: even though iced tea and some whiskies are similar in color, the taste should be an indicator of which is which. Dietary tip here is that drinking a tall glass (a pint or so) of iced tea is fine, drinking that same pint of whiskey not as fine.

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by mahogany bob

WHAT TO DO ??

1. There is no way that Ukraine can WIN the war - prolonged western help will only prolong the agony.

To win a land war you have to be in a position to take land and then hold on to it. So far Putin's men have managed to take some land, most of it an area where they have been fermenting a separatist movement for years, but they have taken ground beyond that region. The price, however, has been a high one in terms of men and equipment and the loss rate in some aspects has been unsustainable. Most of this has been achieved before many of the new weapon systems Ukraine has acquired have been brought to bear. Things are not going to get easier for the Russian Forces. A full mobilisation in Russia will generate more cannon meat, to use the Russian expression, but what fresh equipment does Russia have to bring to the front? The good equipment has not fared well and the old will not do any better.

Putting all that aside, even if Russia did manage to fight to the western edge of Ukraine, how are they going to cope with the resistance movement that will almost certainly be kept supplied by the West. Just how many troops would be need to garrison the country and to make good the losses? Russia pulled out of Afghanistan when their losses reached 10,000. Now they are well over that, possibly double and to coin a phrase, you ain't seen nothing yet.

From a Ukrainian perspective the war is winnable, from a Russian perspective, you cannot get there from here.

[admikar]

Originally Posted by beardy

It's not a question of aligning. It's a question of relevance and relativism. The discussion is about the morality and ethics of Russia and its armed forces and nothing else.

And I totally agree with you that it is not moral. All I am asking here is, can West be the one pointing the finger considering their moral blunders over the years?

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

Russia pulled out of Afghanistan when their losses reached 10,000. Now they are well over that, possibly double and to coin a phrase, you ain't seen nothing yet.

USSR leaving Afghanistan was a different sort of political and cultural thing than 'restoring Russian lands/borders/people to Russia.' The Russians might be willing to pay a higher price to 'get some of their land back into Russia' which looks to be a discrete and well supported (by the Russian political rhetoric, I mean) war aim.

From a Ukrainian perspective the war is winnable, from a Russian perspective, you cannot get there from here.

Depends on what victory conditions are. Keeping, or getting back, Mariupol would seem to me to be a Ukraine victory condition. Land bridge to Crimea and annex parts of Eastern Ukraine seems to be a Russian victory condition...but I am estimating here. There may be lesser included cases inside Russian or Ukrainian policy circles that don't look anything like that.

Originally Posted by admikar

All I am asking here is, can West be the one pointing the finger considering their moral blunders over the years?

Short answer: yes. Welcome to the world of politics, which is the parent of war.

[beardy]

. Morality rarely comes into war until it suits the politics.

Self defence is a moral act and is enshrined in the concept of a Just War.

can West be the one pointing the finger considering their moral blunders over the years?

It is a logical fallacy to use comparison to justify conclusion.

[SASless]

All I am asking here is, can West be the one pointing the finger considering their moral blunders over the years?

Define "West" and "moral blunders" and you will get a longer and more nuanced answer.

Which in the end shall result in the same as what Lone stated.

When the shooting starts....everyone picks a side....most stay on that side until the shooting stops....not so a few of notable European Countries that did some flip flops during the shooting. That is politics as well......of which War itself is a part.

[Beamr]

Meanwhile in Ukraine the latest Russian MBT in theatre isn't that resistant after all. The T90M is the latest version of the tank with first units delivered to forces just 2020. It was supposed to be almost invulnerable with new turret, latest reactive armour with active components etc.
Apparently these were taken to Ukraine just a few days ago. Now this ones a smoking wreck. Says it all really.

Twitter

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by beardy

Self defence is a moral act and is enshrined in the concept of a Just War.

FWIW, as I read the political rhetoric coming out of Moscow, their move into Eastern Ukraine was (in part) justified within the broader self defense principle for those Russians in (Donbas, etc) who were in conflict with the government (depicted in the rhetoric as Nazis) in Kiev. If you look at the "we must help oppressed minorities/peoples/populations" justifications used in the last 40 years, you see in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Somalia, in Kuwait (just to name a few) that same style of justification. (Granted, each case has its own nuances and details).

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

FWIW, as I read the political rhetoric coming out of Moscow, their move into Eastern Ukraine was (in part) justified within the broader self defense principle for those Russians in (Donbas, etc) who were in conflict with the government (depicted in the rhetoric as Nazis) in Kiev. If you look at the "we must help oppressed minorities/peoples/populations" justifications used in the last 40 years, you see in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Somalia, in Kuwait (just to name a few) that same style of justification. (Granted, each case has its own nuances and details).

That fell apart when they raped, robbed and murdered the same Russians they came to subjag liberate… I would imagine those same Russians now hate Russia as much as the Ukrainian population.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Beamr

The T90M is the latest version of the tank with first units delivered to forces just 2020. It was supposed to be almost invulnerable with new turret, latest reactive armour with active components etc. Apparently these were taken to Ukraine just a few days ago. Now this ones a smoking wreck. Says it all really. https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/st...98240509108226

The T-90 is also a tank sold to India. I think that the M model (or a variant of it, MS?) has been around for a few years. I suspect that the Indian Army, as well as the Pakistani Army and Airforce, will take a keen interest in the performance of this model and see what applies to their own situations.

Originally Posted by NutLoose

That fell apart when they raped, robbed and murdered the same Russians they came to subjag liberate… I would imagine those same Russians now hate Russia as much as the Ukrainian population.

You seem to be confusing justification (why does one do this?) with operations (what transpires once one does this?) which renders your response irrelevant to the point I was making. It certainly harms local support for, or incites local opposition to, the "liberating" forces but does not change the political justification (how ever substantive or thin) for why they were sent there.

While I would have hoped that this kind of behavior by the troops would result in disciplinary action / charges, I am not confident that this will come about from the RU side, but more likely will play out like how Milosevic got called to account (ultimately) in The Hague.

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by GeeRam

USSR were not part of the Axis Powers, and didn't change sides as such.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between the Reich and USSR that enabled them to partition Poland between them, it didn't mean USSR signed up to the Axis Powers.
Of course the reasons Hitler justified invading Poland are now the exact same reasons Pootin has justified invading Ukraine......

I think a quick check of the accepted history would show that after Russia / Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1938, a matter of days later Russia and Germany signed an amended clause, complete with a who-gets-to-annex-what after the war (see the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty) plus the rather significant act of the joint operation to invade Poland.

If anyone clings to the idea of the first Molotov-Ribbenstrop Pact was just as honourable as that publicly tabled in August 1938, well why not - you can have those few days.

What is clear is that it was amended outside of public gaze just days later. Amazingly both Germany and Russia were logistically and militarily ready to start major invasions just a few days after the first Molotov-Ribbenstrop Pact and simultaneous with its first amendment. They must have teleported everyone in... we should have looked for those teleport scientists, rather than the rocket kind.