Russia Invades Ukraine

[Harry]

So you think because of a "perceived threat" and muscle Putin is completely justified. Got it.

Most of us agree the Iraq war was wrong and evil, and was a confection of lies from the start - some of us were even saying that at the time.

No it's not justified. But he has the support of his people just like the people of the US, UK and Australia supported the coaltion invasion of Iraq. It's funny how we like to forget these events. As long as countries are allowed to accumulate nuclear weapons then unjustified events like this will occur regardless of who's right or wrong.

 

[Legends of 2017]

No it's not justified. But he has the support of his people just like the people of the US, UK and Australia supported the coaltion invasion of Iraq. It's funny how we like to forget these events. As long as countries are allowed to accumulate nuclear weapons then unjustified events like this will occur regardless of who's right or wrong.

He has the support of his people? Why has he criminalised any criticism of him or the war? Why have thousands of Russians been imprisoned for protesting? Why has he blocked Facebook and restricted Twitter and other social media from his people? Why has he made it harder for journalists not towing the Putin line to report?
Someone who has the the support of his people wouldn’t need to implement these measures would they?
As for the coalition invasion of Iraq, there were plenty who supported it and just as many who didn’t, but the media in those countries were also free to report on both sides of the argument without worrying about being jailed or worse.

 

[AngryAnt]

No it's not justified. But he has the support of his people just like the people of the US, UK and Australia supported the coaltion invasion of Iraq. It's funny how we like to forget these events. As long as countries are allowed to accumulate nuclear weapons then unjustified events like this will occur regardless of who's right or wrong.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say here.

 

[mrposhman]

FFS I really am getting to the point where I can only conclude that this situation, and great power geopolitics, is simply too complex for most to grasp.

But, I asked a question, and I will ask it again:

Are people here seriously saying that NATO has not been provoking Russia? Or, are you saying that NATO provoking Russia is a good thing?​

DS

You do as much missing the point as any of the rest of us do.

You constantly blame us for not seeing Putins side, but want you fail to recognise is WE DO SEE PUTINS SIDE, but unlike you we don't believe that his side is even a reality.

IMO Putin is one of the most paranoid men on the planet. Look at his table where he has his cabinet. One side him, the other (circa 10-15m away). Why does he do that? Some get confused and say its to do with Covid, but its actually nothing of the sort. Its because he distances himself from anyone due to the chances of chemical attack (like he does to those he doesn't like and who don't agree with him).

You, Gia and Harry keep pushing for a rational solution (which is to give in) which may be a solution IF Putin was being rational. The facts are, he isn't being rational, you cannot approach an irrational situation with a rational solution. It just wouldn't work. If the West gave in to Putin on Ukraine and allowed him to take it, how long do you give Georgia??

Putin may not be a psycho like some have suggested, but he is without a doubt paranoid and irrational. That is why we are there.

I go back to your points on NATO being the aggressor here and taking territory. If that is true, why did they not provide Ukraine NATO membership when they asked for it?

 

[Harry]

He has the support of his people? Why has he criminalised any criticism of him or the war? Why have thousands of Russians been imprisoned for protesting? Why has he blocked Facebook and restricted Twitter and other social media from his people? Why has he made it harder for journalists not towing the Putin line to report?
Someone who has the the support of his people wouldn’t need to implement these measures would they?
As for the coalition invasion of Iraq, there were plenty who supported it and just as many who didn’t, but the media in those countries were also free to report on both sides of the argument without worrying about being jailed or worse.

Putin has the majority of the support in Russia despite what the western media tell you. Just like the coalition had. Remember arguing with people who believed the narrative that we had to take down Saddam. People believe anything when their own safety is at stake.

 

[Baloo]

Putin has the majority of the support in Russia despite what the western media tell you. Just like the coalition had.

Sauce?

My sources, people living and working in ex Soviet bloc countries with family and friends in Russia & Ukraine, to man tell me the average Russian has no idea, or chooses to have no idea, of what is happening and the extent of the war that's going on.

When faced with evidence of what's going on, there's disbelief and/or shock. But as long as they don't have family or friends impacted, they'll just keep going about their lives as if nothing is new because it's not worth saying anything too loudly in Putin's Russia.

But if Russian casualties start to mount, there's a belief that things may getting interesting.

 

[mrposhman]

Sauce?

My sources, people living and working in ex Soviet bloc countries with family and friends in Russia & Ukraine, to man tell me the average Russian has no idea, or chooses to have no idea, of what is happening and the extent of the war that's going on.

When faced with evidence of what's going on, there's disbelief and/or shock. But as long as they don't have family or friends impacted, they'll just keep going about their lives as if nothing is new because it's not worth saying anything too loudly in Putin's Russia.

But if Russian casualties start to mount, there's a belief that things may getting interesting.

They are already mounting. Ukraine says 11,000, Russia says 500. Both sides obviously will be over or under stating their position.

Even if you take the mid point, of 5,750 troops, comparing that to how many US service personnel died in Afghanistan and Iraq (7,000), then Russia have nearly lost as many in 2 weeks than the US lost in 12 years.

 

[Baloo]

They are already mounting. Ukraine says 11,000, Russia says 500. Both sides obviously will be over or under stating their position.

Even if you take the mid point, of 5,750 troops, comparing that to how many US service personnel died in Afghanistan and Iraq (7,000), then Russia have nearly lost as many in 2 weeks than the US lost in 12 years.

In most cases news of the deaths have not made it back to families. When they had military exercises a couple of months before the invasion, all soldiers had their phones confiscated. There are no real lines of communication back to the families. It's one of the reasons the Ukraines are keen to have captured Russian soldiers facetime their families back home to tell them where they are and what's been happening.

 

[Harry]

They are already mounting. Ukraine says 11,000, Russia says 500. Both sides obviously will be over or under stating their position.

Even if you take the mid point, of 5,750 troops, comparing that to how many US service personnel died in Afghanistan and Iraq (7,000), then Russia have nearly lost as many in 2 weeks than the US lost in 12 years.

If casualties start to mount then Russia will start to use the airforce which they've been hesitant to use thus far. Not good either way.

 

[DavidSSS]

Both sides are using propaganda, it is only that a lot of people here choose to totally reject one side's propaganda and totally accept the other side's propaganda which is why it is seen as such a black and white issue. Personally, I choose to question propaganda from both sides, it is a choice I make and you are entitled to make your own choices.

To say both sides use propaganda and then claim that I am saying there is moral equivalence is, yet f*cking again, putting words in my mouth. It is either inability to understand or it is baiting/trolling.

I could say both sides kicked goals in the 1972 Grand Final but no-one would conclude that I am saying both sides kicked an equivalent number of goals.

I see my questions have been avoided yet again:
Are people here seriously saying that NATO has not been provoking Russia? Or, are you saying that NATO provoking Russia is a good thing?

You, Gia and Harry keep pushing for a rational solution (which is to give in)

FFS, can you actually read, or is this simply a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, which was:

The Ukrainians remain the pawns in this geopolitical contest. But what is a pawn to do? They are not in a great position. Invaded by a clearly superior military power, lacking real support from NATO and the US, Ukraine really is the meat in the sandwich. Russia is most likely to win the war, but resistance from Ukraine, maybe even limiting the war that Russia is likely to win by making it simply too much of a sacrifice to take all of Ukraine, does give them some space to win the peace. Russia is unlikely to win the peace in the medium term. They could install a client regime but it is a short term fix, Ukraine should resist, maybe we could even get a sensible cease fire and some sort of resolution to the issues which have been inflamed by both sides.

Just exactly where am I saying Ukraine should give in? I say the complete opposite and you completely misrepresent what I say, yet again.

If you fail to understand both sides' motivations you end up with conflict, so here we are, there's a war going on and people are getting killed. Have fun on your high horses, people are dying below. If you want to know why I am not bothering to put the case against Putin and Russia, who, as I have said many many many many many times are clearly more to blame, it is because, between the media's hypocritical horror at white fellas in Europe being killed (and screw all the swarthy types getting killed in various other conflicts like Yemen 'cos we simply don't give a sh*t), and the echo chamber of a one-sided view of this conflict here, I simply have no need to say anything about that because it is being broadcast at deafening volume from all around.

If you refuse to understand Russia's position, and I'm going to have to point out that understanding does not mean support as some appear to be too thick to see the difference, then you end up with conflict and war.

So, some more analysis on Russia's perspective and some more background.

I will not bother to provide background on the West's view of all of this, you lot are repeating that propaganda very well along with the media.

DS

 

[Baloo]

If you refuse to understand Russia's position, and I'm going to have to point out that understanding does not mean support as some appear to be too thick to see the difference, then you end up with conflict and war.

What you fail to accept is that someone can understand what you are pushing as Russia's position but they don't agree with your interpretation of it.

But sure, if someone doesn't agree with you, call them thick, stupid, and all the other slurs you've thrown out. That helps.

 

[DavidSSS]

What you fail to accept is that someone can understand what you are pushing as Russia's position but they don't agree with your interpretation of it.

But sure, if someone doesn't agree with you, call them thick, stupid, and all the other slurs you've thrown out. That helps.

I get people don't agree with what I'm saying, that worries me not at all.

What pisses me off is the rampant misinterpretation of what I am saying (and, yes, that does make me angry, I can't stand being misrepresented and a lot of the interpretations of what I have said strike me as either an inability to understand or a refusal to understand) along with the wholesale parroting of one side of the story.

Where does the whole Putin is mad/bad or whatever take us? Nowhere except conflict.

Plus, I get pulled up if I don't answer someone's questions but no-one here is willing to answer: Are people here seriously saying that NATO has not been provoking Russia? Or, are you saying that NATO provoking Russia is a good thing?

DS

 

[Streak]

If casualties start to mount then Russia will start to use the airforce which they've been hesitant to use thus far. Not good either way.

I don't think the Russian air force will have much of a role in this Harry, at least not until it is virtually over. The cost of fighting a war with modern aircraft is astronomical, and quite frankly, something I don't think Russia can afford. This is a war Russia wants to win as cheaply as possible, and that means on the ground or dare I say it, with nuclear weapons. The one thing the Russians have is plenty of people.

In Ukraine, the Russians are fighting a foe whose military hardware is basically the same as theirs, including air defence systems. Granted the Russians have a lot more of it. Both sides know the strengths and weaknesses of each others systems. The Russians know very well that the Ukrainians have the capacity at the moment to take out plenty of their combat aircraft, especially given that much of the foreign support given to Ukraine is in the form of surface to air munition. This situation will not change unless the Russians can neutralise this capability, either by ground forces or nuclear weapons.

Again, I am no expert, but I think this is also what NATO sees, and it is why they have baulked at the no-fly zone demands over Ukrainian air space. The cost benefit analysis of providing this support to Ukraine as opposed to potentially escalating the conflict to a global war is just not there. The enforcement of a no fly zone does not overly change the situation on the ground in Ukraine, as it stands at the moment. If the Russian air force came in to the conflict on masse then yeah, that changes things. But it would come with some terrible risks for the Russians IMO.

The Russians also learnt some serious military lessons in Syria. I am not saying they coped a beating, I am saying they studied what occurred and learnt from it. While I am not an expert on what transpired in that conflict, I have little doubt that their use of their air force in Ukraine so far has been based on those lessons.

Regardless of any other reason, Russia did not invade Ukraine to weaken its own military position. I have little doubt that this is driving Russian tactics so far. They can afford to lose troops, and to a less extent tanks and vehicles, much more than they can aircraft.

 

[Baloo]

Where does the whole Putin is mad/bad or whatever take us? Nowhere except conflict.

But if he is, and has proven by his actions over the years to be bad, and if not mad, should we ignore that and just pretend it's not a major contributor of the war he has started?

You contend he wouldn't have launched a campaign to take back control of the ex-soviet countries if he didn't feel threatened. The other side of the coin is that we would have embarked on his quest to make Russia great again regardless of what you think the West has done to provoke him.

I talk to our Sofia office daily. We've had to send in satellite phones, supplies and support while trying to extract our Ukraine staff out safely, at least those that want to be extracted. We're still operating out of Russia but making plans for our staff in case we need to shut those down quickly.

These are the people I talk to. They all call Putin a madman who is out of control. I'll take their word for it.

 

[Sintiger]

Are people here seriously saying that NATO has not been provoking Russia? Or, are you saying that NATO provoking Russia is a good thing?

Russia was provoked yes but my answer to that is, so what? Every war has a back story which are all important to learn lessons from but that’s not the main story right now.
It is like 2 guys in a bar. One of them continually gets in the face of the other so the one being provoked pulls out a gun and shoots him in the head.
The lesson there is don’t provoke a madman with a gun. Putin is a madman with a gun

 

[mrposhman]

I get people don't agree with what I'm saying, that worries me not at all.

What pisses me off is the rampant misinterpretation of what I am saying (and, yes, that does make me angry, I can't stand being misrepresented and a lot of the interpretations of what I have said strike me as either an inability to understand or a refusal to understand) along with the wholesale parroting of one side of the story.

Where does the whole Putin is mad/bad or whatever take us? Nowhere except conflict.

Plus, I get pulled up if I don't answer someone's questions but no-one here is willing to answer: Are people here seriously saying that NATO has not been provoking Russia? Or, are you saying that NATO provoking Russia is a good thing?

DS

We understand your point, but you just seem to assume that anyone that doesn't immediately agree with you must be dumb and stupid.

Yes there has been "some" provocation from NATO, but was it really that huge. Did they really have an invading force on the border of Russia, nope not at all. Could they have provoked them further? Of course they could, but they chose NOT TO ESCALATE by rejecting Ukraine from joining NATO. This is the bit you don't seem to accept from others points, your whole view is Putin is threatened due to NATO but the actual provocation from NATO actually wasn't that big of a threat. Heck NATO (predominantly Germany) were looking to bring on another gas pipeline from Russia which would have secured their economic future, but all Putin sees is a military issue.

You can claim "where does the Putin is mad / bad take us". Thats true somewhat, but you can only reason with a man that has reason. Putin is without doubt (and I doubt even you or Harry can dispute this) an incredibly paranoid man. A lot of this is due to his own actions, and the fear that someone else will throw back at him what he does at others, hence why he's so paranoid of chemical attack / poisoning, which is also one of the reasons why talk of assassination of Putin is very hard. Its nigh on impossible to even get close to him. The only way to take him out IMO is through a missile strike which will not happen.

As I said in a previous post above, you are looking for a rational solution with a man that is acting irrationally. It just doesn't work. If we provide him a rational solution, then as he has done over the last 15 years, he will continue to act irrationally and with the feeling that he is untouchable.

There is no easy way out of this (for Russia, the Ukraine or the rest of the world), but trying to appease Putin has hardly worked over the last 10-15 years has it. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are a lot of similarities with WW2 where Europe tried to appease Hitler for "smaller acts" and then that ended with a much bigger act. We've done the same with Putin, and yet again it resulted in a much bigger act. The reason here is the rationality of the aggressor, we went in with a rational solution but were provided an irrational response.

 

[Brodders17]

Russia was provoked yes but my answer to that is, so what? Every war has a back story which are all important to learn lessons from but that’s not the main story right now.
It is like 2 guys in a bar. One of them continually gets in the face of the other so the one being provoked pulls out a gun and shoots him in the head.
The lesson there is don’t provoke a madman with a gun. Putin is a madman with a gun

isnt it more the equivalent of the madman shooting a 3rd party, npt the guy getting in his face?

As far as i can tell NATO are being accused of provoking Putin, and Putin's response has been to invade a country that has been refused NATO membership?

 

[AngryAnt]

I see my questions have been avoided yet again:
Are people here seriously saying that NATO has not been provoking Russia? Or, are you saying that NATO provoking Russia is a good thing?

I gave you a detailed answer to this, but here it is again.

"On the question of NATO, the informed comment I've read suggests that a decade of weak NATO and Western responses has encouraged Putin - the idea that Putin has been "forced" into this is patently absurd.

As for NATO "provoking" Russia, that's nonsense. NATO allowed nations that wanted to join to join - as long as they qualified and were accepted by a vote of member nations.

Let's be frank David - Ukraine had a choice - increasingly become a vassal state to Russia with all its corruption, hegemony, oligarchs and a crime syndicate running the show or look to the West - an EU that values trade, transparency, innovation and democracy. You've really painted yourself into a pro-Russian propaganda corner here.

Final point on the complexities of all this - NATO refused Ukraine full membership as it didn't qualify, just as it doesn't yet qualify for EU membership. Ukraine is a "partner nation" of NATO however. The idea that the US runs NATO as a puppet association and just wants to expand it forever is also wrong - even expansion in the last few decades was hotly contested internally as it means NATOs budget and capabilities are diluted.

For those interested in facts rather than just the simplistic take of poor Mother Russia being squeezed by the evil USA and its minions, this article is a good primer. https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east"



The last 15 years has been a case of Russia provoking Europe and fighting proxy battles in other parts of the world, not to mention election interference and massive social media disinformation campaigns.

 

[AngryAnt]

So, some more analysis on Russia's perspective and some more background.

That first article contains useful info but misses the point - that the Russians know it wasn't a "betrayal" but have leveraged that point of view as propaganda ever since.

As before, read this https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

The second article gets it exactly right - Putin cynically created the independent areas in Ukraine to block Ukraine joining NATO of its own free will. Quote:

"Convinced that Nato will never reject Ukraine’s membership, Putin has now taken his own steps to block it. By invading Donetsk and Luhansk, he has created a “frozen conflict”, knowing the alliance cannot admit countries that don’t control all their borders. Frozen conflicts already cripple Georgia and Moldova, which are also split by pro-Russian statelets. Now Ukraine joins the list. There is speculation about what will happen next but from his standpoint, it is not actually necessary to send troops further into the country. He has already taken what he needs." (this article written on the 24th Feb so events have moved on".

Again, Russia's primary motivation is all these is to maintain hegemonic control over it's neighbours, not because NATO is any kind of a "threat", but because his grandiose vision and the message a free Ukraine sends to Russians.

Can't wait for you to say "you have just swallowed the Western propaganda" and "you people are too stupid to understand geopolitics" again.

 

[Sintiger]

isnt it more the equivalent of the madman shooting a 3rd party, npt the guy getting in his face?

As far as i can tell NATO are being accused of provoking Putin, and Putin's response has been to invade a country that has been refused NATO membership?

Yes good point