Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES) - Please put sensitive content behind a spoiler



lurker said:
@ealing bee

How will we ever have a victory against such world class opposition?!
Click to expand...
As I said, it is much harder to wage an offensive war than a defensive one - as the Russians have found out since Feb.24th!

And besides, Putin doesn't give a stuff how incompetent his troops are, they're just cannon fodder as far as he's concerned, plenty more where they came from.

I mean, they were no more competent eg in WW11, but often they drove the Wehrmacht back by sheer force of numbers, incurring unimaginable casualties, not least by having the KGB behind their own lines, shooting anyone who didn't keep on advancing.
lurker said:
It’s been very cheap to wage war so far.

Hope this helps.

Keep calm and carry on eh?
Click to expand...
"So far".

How long do you imagine it will go on, and how much destruction will it have caused to Ukraine before it ends?

Apparently they reckoned WW1 would all be over by Christmas.
 
Last edited:
ealing bee said:
plenty more where they came from.
Click to expand...

Myth based on WW2.

They've had to increase the military recruitment age to 50, bribe people with 3k+ Rubles a month, form Volunteer battalions no-one wants to join and press-gang Ukrainians from the Donbass.

Russia has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.58 children per woman) and is sitting on a demographic timebomb they're exacerbating with this war.

Ukraine outnumbers Russia 3:2 in infantry. The advantage Russia has is mainly heavy artillery.
 
Schnauzer said:
So when you said 'And what state will Ukraine be in (physically) once we've pulverised Russia's army?' you weren't implying that Ukraine should give up and negotiate a peace before then? That is how I read your intent otherwise why would you even mention it if you support Ukraine fighting to get back to its 2013 borders?
Click to expand...
Then you've read it wrong.

For I'm NOT saying that Ukraine should (or will) give up - quite the contrary.

But quite obviously Ukraine cannot carry on taking the fight to Russia without contiinuing Western support. And I'm not so sure as many on here that we can that support for granted should the conflict drag on to a protracted war of attrition, with the cost incurred by the consequent levelling of Ukraine mounting by the day.

But if I'm wrong with that gloomy prognosis, then I'll happily hold my hand up.
Schnauzer said:
After all, it is your fear that the cohesive support of western governments will waver and fracture over financial costs and not over any care for the damage being inflicted upon Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Er, the damage done to Ukraine in the struggle to evict the Russians will be in addition to the present cost of supplying weaponry etc, not somehow separate from it.

And my fear is that at some stage, when the West sees the bill has reached a certain level, they/we will conclude that it will be cheaper/easier just to end it prematurely, with Ukraine having got most of what it wants, but with Russia also having kept just enough to persuade Putin to withdraw (a "Golden Bridge")
Schnauzer said:
Finally I'll round off with what I consider the foundation of my belief that Western support for Ukraine will remain solid;

The west tends to fight for aný of ideology, geopolitics or petrochemicals. Ukraine has plenty of onshore oil and gas but there is plenty more under its Black Sea region of exclusive economic interest and it needs to reclaim Crimea to secure a large part of that area.

The USA and Europe will keep on backing Ukraine to secure a democracy, to move Russia's Black Sea fleet to the eastern shores well away from Moldova (thus further isolating Transnistria). Most of all they will support Ukraine's fight to establish it as a petro rival to Russia, something of interest to the whole EU and Turkey - security of gas supply as well as having a competitor to help drive prices down.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I fear you are hugely understaing the difficulty of such an objective.

First, the physical geography of Crimea will make any (essentially amphibious) liberation of its territory enormously difficult - and that's before you consider the unpalatable but undeniable fact that the majority of the Crimean population are sympathetic to Russia.

Second, the existence of offshore oil and gas etc makes it just as attractive to Putin to hold on to it as it does for the West to reclaim it.

Third, there is actually no shortage of oil and gas in various parts of the world, rather it's just a question of how much it costs to extract it. And even if extracting Crimean offshore oil should prove relatively cheap (I don't know, myself), it will take many years and huge investment up front before it comes online. And that's before you consider that the demand side is gradually declining as the world weans itself off fossil fuels.
chrismisterx said:
Russia has done this before, more than once when things have gone bad.
Click to expand...
Russia hasn't done "this" i.e. staged a successful, popular uprising since 1917.
chrismisterx said:
It is also thought Starlin was bumped off, dont think we will ever know for sure, but plenty of accounts that the night he died of strange going on, like the fact Starlin who was obsessive about his personal security told his guards to leave and not disturb him, many years later one of the guards claims it was the head of security, Khrustalev, that gave the order claiming it came from Stalin. Speculation suggests Khrustalev was the culprit and acted under the orders of Beria.
Any assassination would need to be kept secret because Stalin’s Cult of Personality meant most Soviets revered him, at least in public.
Click to expand...
So your best evidence to suggest that the Russians will soon rise up en masse against Putin is a claim that Stalin didn't die 69 years ago from natural causes, but was instead bumped off by someone in his inner circle? (This being a theory, btw, which the majority of outside observers don't accept).
chrismisterx said:
Also if you have noticed tyrants tend to fall when they look weak, happens all the time, once Putin starts to look weak things will change faster than expected, the yes men we see today in public doesn't mean they are yes men in private, one of the reason why Stalin may have been removed was the fear he could take the USSR into a 3rd world war, as he was becoming more and more out of control
Click to expand...
Thanks to Putin's propaganda machine, the great majority of Russians appear to think that this "special military operation to remove the Nazis in Kiev and restore the dignity of the Russian people etc" is actually proof of Putin's and Russia's strength, not of weakness.

While the fact that they're not actually making progress is down to the fact that the whole of the West is against them i.e.proof of Putin's and Russia's indomitable defiance.

Of course if Ukraine could achive a quick and decisive defeat of the Russian army, then that would give a lie to the propaganda and break the spell which Putin has over the people. But I'm not sure it will be that decisive and even if it is, I really don't think it will be quick.
chrismisterx said:
I see a lot of similarities, where the people in power are scared of Putin and support him in public and there is a cult of Putin in the public, but he has also had some ill health issues and seems to be losing it, maybe if things get worse his ill health will do him in, like Stalin...
Click to expand...
Ukraine war: CIA chief says no intelligence that Putin is in bad health
chrismisterx said:
IMO this war in part is because of issues at home, I get the feeling Putin needed a win and has misjudged the whole campaign, we have already seen its not a united front, plenty of discontent already, next few months will be very telling.
Click to expand...
Actually the evidence is that Putin is very adept at turning adverse events to his own advantage eg seizing control of the media after the Kursk submarine disaster; or cancelling elections after the Beslan school massacre; or using the Moscow theater bombings as a pretext to smash Chechnya etc.

And in any case, the invasion of Ukraine was not a face-saving exercise, rather coming as it has after a period when his approval ratings are high, it was actually a triumphalist move, intended to capitalise on that popularity.

Of course, it was also a huge miscalculation in practical terms, but that shouldn't disguise his true motive, or his ability to turn it round.
chrismisterx said:
History does tend to repeat itself.
Click to expand...
It all depends on which history you choose.

I could point eg to the 1945 Conference* when even from a position of overwhelming strength, the Western Allies conceded Poland and half of Eastern Europe to another dictator in Moscow.

Or much more recently, when the Yanks withdrew completely avoidably from Afhanistan, leaving behind an ugly, disgraceful and humiliating disaster for all concerne (bar their mortal enemies in the Taliban and Al Qaida).


* That 1945 Conference was in Yalta, btw. Which is in the Crimea.
 
Last edited:
ealing bee said:
As I said, it is much harder to wage an offensive war than a defensive one - as the Russians have found out since Feb.24th!

And besides, Putin doesn't give a stuff how incompetent his troops are, they're just cannon fodder as far as he's concerned, plenty more where they came from.

I mean, they were no more competent eg in WW11, but often they drove the Wehrmacht back by sheer force of numbers, incurring unimaginable casualties, not least by having the KGB behind their own lines, shooting anyone who didn't keep on advancing.

"So far".

How long do you imagine it will go on, and how much destruction will it have caused to Ukraine before it ends?

Apparently they reckoned WW1 would all be over by Christmas.
Click to expand...
for a Russian shill you're not very clued up on history are you

the Soviet armies at the end of WW2 were extremely competent, arguably the best combined offensive army of the time

and there was no KGB in WW2, it was the NKVD back then
 
Scotty said:
for a Russian shill you're not very clued up on history are you
Click to expand...
"Shill"? It is always a sign of how weak someones argument is when he/she plays the man, not the ball.

Especially when it's such a pathetic attempt.
Scotty said:
the Soviet armies at the end of WW2 were extremely competent, arguably the best combined offensive army of the time
Click to expand...
Unless defeated before then, surviving armies usually improve with experience - see eg WW1, both sides. Russia had four years to learn the lessons from their early disasters after Barbarossa.
Scotty said:
and there was no KGB in WW2, it was the NKVD back then
Click to expand...
Well if wer'e taking accuracy, then the Soviets called it "The Great Patriotic War", not WW2.
 
ealing bee said:
Then you've read it wrong.

For I'm NOT saying that Ukraine should (or will) give up - quite the contrary.

But quite obviously Ukraine cannot carry on taking the fight to Russia without contiinuing Western support. And I'm not so sure as many on here that we can that support for granted should the conflict drag on to a protracted war of attrition, with the cost incurred by the consequent levelling of Ukraine mounting by the day.

But if I'm wrong with that gloomy prognosis, then I'll happily hold my hand up.

Er, the damage done to Ukraine in the struggle to evict the Russians will be in addition to the present cost of supplying weaponry etc, not somehow separate from it.

And my fear is that at some stage, when the West sees the bill has reached a certain level, they/we will conclude that it will be cheaper/easier just to end it prematurely, with Ukraine having got most of what it wants, but with Russia also having kept just enough to persuade Putin to withdraw (a "Golden Bridge")

Fair enough, but I fear you are hugely understaing the difficulty of such an objective.

First, the physical geography of Crimea will make any (essentially amphibious) liberation of its territory enormously difficult - and that's before you consider the unpalatable but undeniable fact that the majority of the Crimean population are sympathetic to Russia.

Second, the existence of offshore oil and gas etc makes it just as attractive to Putin to hold on to it as it does for the West to reclaim it.

Third, there is actually no shortage of oil and gas in various parts of the world, rather it's just a question of how much it costs to extract it. And even if extracting Crimean offshore oil should prove relatively cheap (I don't know, myself), it will take many years and huge investment up front before it comes online. And that's before you consider that the demand side is gradually declining as the world weans itself off fossil fuels.

Russia hasn't done "this" i.e. staged a successful, popular uprising since 1917.

So your best evidence to suggest that the Russians will soon rise up en masse against Putin is a claim that Stalin didn't die 69 years ago from natural causes, but was instead bumped off by someone in his inner circle? (This being a theory, btw, which the majority of outside observers don't accept).

Thanks to Putin's propaganda machine, the great majority of Russians appear to think that this "special military operation to remove the Nazis in Kiev and restore the dignity of the Russian people etc" is actually proof of Putin's and Russia's strength, not of weakness.

While the fact that they're not actually making progress is down to the fact that the whole of the West is against them i.e.proof of Putin's and Russia's indomitable defiance.

Of course if Ukraine could achive a quick and decisive defeat of the Russian army, then that would give a lie to the propaganda and break the spell which Putin has over the people. But I'm not sure it will be that decisive and even if it is, I really don't think it will be quick.

Ukraine war: CIA chief says no intelligence that Putin is in bad health

Actually the evidence is that Putin is very adept at turning adverse events to his own advantage eg seizing control of the media after the Kursk submarine disaster; or cancelling elections after the Beslan school massacre; or using the Moscow theater bombings as a pretext to smash Chechnya etc.

And in any case, the invasion of Ukraine was not a face-saving exercise, rather coming as it has after a period when his approval ratings are high, it was actually a triumphalist move, intended to capitalise on that popularity.

Of course, it was also a huge miscalculation in practical terms, but that shouldn't disguise his true motive, or his ability to turn it round.

It all depends on which history you choose.

I could point eg to the 1945 Conference* when even from a position of overwhelming strength, the Western Allies conceded Poland and half of Eastern Europe to another dictator in Moscow.

Or much more recently, when the Yanks withdrew completely avoidably from Afhanistan, leaving behind an ugly, disgraceful and humiliating disaster for all concerne (bar their mortal enemies in the Taliban and Al Qaida).


* That 1945 Conference was in Yalta, btw. Which is in the Crimea.
Click to expand...
the only point that really makes sense is " It all depends on the history you choose"

you like to boil things down to simplistic views, trying to make it black and white, noticed the "Russian" ( Putin ) defenders do this a lot.

You point to 1945 as a west against Russia and come out with the most simplistic view, that some how the west was weak due to conceding some land, ignoring all the other factors. main one was the USA wanted and needed for their growth to get sterling removed as the standard, to get the Dollar in its place. this started in 1927, where the dollar made big inroads into the lead sterling had over the Dollar then thanks in no small part of the second world war it was pretty much completed by 1948, just because the west were allies, doesn't mean each country didn't have its own goals, the USA played a blinder making sure it would advance to the worlds number 1 power and with hindsight you can see how this was done. It used Russia to this end.

Each proxy war, each event strengthened the USA, the USSR falling further and further behind, until crisis point when it collapsed, again you see this clearly with hindsight.

Russia had lost its mantel of being a global power many years ago, I would argue it never really was a super power, it was at best a regional one, it as a country is weak and falling into the shadow of china, you talk about Afghanistan, Russia had to leave as it couldn't afford to fight there anymore, it was soundly beaten, troop losses and equipment losses where devastating for them. They became a one trick pony, "we have nukes".

Take a long hard look at the wars Russia win and lose, they get soundly beaten more often than not, there's a reason for this, unless they fight peasants and uprisings or are allied with the golbal powers. when they engage the worlds empires as enemies they have always been soundly beaten.

Take a long hard look at the history of Russia from the Crimean war onwards, you can clearly see again with the benefit of hindsight Russian failings and problems on the world stage.

Putin is very adept at turning adverse events to his own advantage you say, to a small degree when trying to save face, which has happened more than once, like after getting beaten in the first Chechnya war.

The part you are missing is it all depends what suits the major players, until now it didn't suit the west to get involved but something has changed and now we are and we are seeing yet again the effect of the real might of the world has, we can see very clearly the difference between the power of the USA and rest of the world.

It now suits the west to act, Ukraine has become the perfect proxy, Russia cant win this war, they have lost the PR war by a long shot, they are losing on the ground, the Ukraine will become Putin's Stalingrad.


With regards Stalin, no one will ever know the truth, but assassination was a very popular tool in Russia and still is by all accounts, who knows what will happen with Putin. ( was Russian reports that said he needed hospital)

Simple fact, which tends to get lost, without the USA or the UK Russia would have fallen in the second world war, the amount of materials thats was sent was no small thing also without the wholescale removal of German scientists and equipment, Russia would have been light years behind the yanks, it was always impossible for the USSR to keep up with the USA and it played right into the USA's hands them trying. Just look at history, Russia was a shell of a country when it collapsed and the US was a massive war machine with plenty of cash, cant say the same for Russia.

I now feel Russia was a useful tool for the USA, they needed a bad guy, thanks to the red menace the wheels of military capitalism turned nicely, think we will see the US less focused on Russia and have china as the new menace for us all to worry about.

Russia spends the same as the UK on defence, just let that sink in, the USA 45 times more, can you really sit there and think they can go toe to toe with the west, the Ukraine will bleed them, set them back years.

Russia had one card, NUKES, but it seems they are the country that cried Wolf and its lost its threat.


edit:-

sorry mods, will leave it there, forgot this was the news thread.
 
Last edited:
ealing bee said:
However Ukraine eventually pans out, where do you think it will leave Putin?

1. His army will have been seriously depleted: men, hardware, morale and reputation, such that if he couldn't even walk over a (relatively) small neighbour like Ukraine, where woud his next adventure take him?
2. His economy, as you've pointed out, is already seriously trashed, with further to come if necessary;
3. His European neighbours like Germany, Italy have finally realised that they cannot be dependant on Russian enetgy and resources in future;
4. We now have a President in the White House who "gets" the threat - unlike his predecessor;
5.(Most importantly) NATO is now firmly back on the West's "to do list" - funding, equipment, resources etc;
6. Finland and Sweden are now in NATO, thereby strenghtening our borders with Russia immeasurably;
7. The most vulnerable neighbouring states like Poland and the Baltics are now on full alert, so won't be caught napping like Ukraine.

Facing all that, Putin would have to be mad to launch another attack, at least against a NATO member. And while he might be a ****, he's not a mad ****.

So containing him within Russia's borders will come at a cost, We know that. But taking out house insurance still comes cheaper than fighting a housefire.

The need to switch from pumping gas to Western Europe via pipelines, to building plants and ports to ship liquid petroleum gas to India and China etc will cost a huge sum and take years - and that's if he can get the technology he needs from the West to permit it, which he won't. And when he does get it there, don't think they're going to buy it at the fair market price in a buyers' market.
While all the time he will be dependant on other energy producers not increasing their output, and other consumers not switching increasingly from fossil fuels to green alternatives.

If by "arse-kicking" you mean crushing his army completely and getting them out of Ukraine, I agree we could - and should!

But as Russia's own troubles are demonstrating, waging an offensive war is FAR harder, protracted and costlier than a defensive one.

Which is why I fear that the West - but not Ukraine - will eventually become war-weary and agree a "peace settlement" which falls somewhat short of all-out victory.

But we'll see.
Click to expand...
Ukraine aren’t a relatively small neighbour. They are the largest country in Europe (not including Russia) they are being backed with supplies and intelligence from most of the powerhouses. It’s a country that has seen war their whole lives. So they’re battle hard.
It’s not an easy task invading a country, as it’s been proved over and over within our lifetime.

I do think Russia will eventually achieve their objective but there’s not many countries outside of NATO that would be harder to take than Ukraine.
 
ealing bee said:
Then you've read it wrong.

For I'm NOT saying that Ukraine should (or will) give up - quite the contrary.

But quite obviously Ukraine cannot carry on taking the fight to Russia without contiinuing Western support. And I'm not so sure as many on here that we can that support for granted should the conflict drag on to a protracted war of attrition, with the cost incurred by the consequent levelling of Ukraine mounting by the day.

But if I'm wrong with that gloomy prognosis, then I'll happily hold my hand up.

Er, the damage done to Ukraine in the struggle to evict the Russians will be in addition to the present cost of supplying weaponry etc, not somehow separate from it.

And my fear is that at some stage, when the West sees the bill has reached a certain level, they/we will conclude that it will be cheaper/easier just to end it prematurely, with Ukraine having got most of what it wants, but with Russia also having kept just enough to persuade Putin to withdraw (a "Golden Bridge")

Fair enough, but I fear you are hugely understaing the difficulty of such an objective.

First, the physical geography of Crimea will make any (essentially amphibious) liberation of its territory enormously difficult - and that's before you consider the unpalatable but undeniable fact that the majority of the Crimean population are sympathetic to Russia.

Second, the existence of offshore oil and gas etc makes it just as attractive to Putin to hold on to it as it does for the West to reclaim it.

Third, there is actually no shortage of oil and gas in various parts of the world, rather it's just a question of how much it costs to extract it. And even if extracting Crimean offshore oil should prove relatively cheap (I don't know, myself), it will take many years and huge investment up front before it comes online. And that's before you consider that the demand side is gradually declining as the world weans itself off fossil fuels.

Russia hasn't done "this" i.e. staged a successful, popular uprising since 1917.

So your best evidence to suggest that the Russians will soon rise up en masse against Putin is a claim that Stalin didn't die 69 years ago from natural causes, but was instead bumped off by someone in his inner circle? (This being a theory, btw, which the majority of outside observers don't accept).

Thanks to Putin's propaganda machine, the great majority of Russians appear to think that this "special military operation to remove the Nazis in Kiev and restore the dignity of the Russian people etc" is actually proof of Putin's and Russia's strength, not of weakness.

While the fact that they're not actually making progress is down to the fact that the whole of the West is against them i.e.proof of Putin's and Russia's indomitable defiance.

Of course if Ukraine could achive a quick and decisive defeat of the Russian army, then that would give a lie to the propaganda and break the spell which Putin has over the people. But I'm not sure it will be that decisive and even if it is, I really don't think it will be quick.

Ukraine war: CIA chief says no intelligence that Putin is in bad health

Actually the evidence is that Putin is very adept at turning adverse events to his own advantage eg seizing control of the media after the Kursk submarine disaster; or cancelling elections after the Beslan school massacre; or using the Moscow theater bombings as a pretext to smash Chechnya etc.

And in any case, the invasion of Ukraine was not a face-saving exercise, rather coming as it has after a period when his approval ratings are high, it was actually a triumphalist move, intended to capitalise on that popularity.

Of course, it was also a huge miscalculation in practical terms, but that shouldn't disguise his true motive, or his ability to turn it round.

It all depends on which history you choose.

I could point eg to the 1945 Conference* when even from a position of overwhelming strength, the Western Allies conceded Poland and half of Eastern Europe to another dictator in Moscow.

Or much more recently, when the Yanks withdrew completely avoidably from Afhanistan, leaving behind an ugly, disgraceful and humiliating disaster for all concerne (bar their mortal enemies in the Taliban and Al Qaida).


* That 1945 Conference was in Yalta, btw. Which is in the Crimea.
Click to expand...
The amount of posts and length of them leaves no other explanation than that it is your job to troll forums.
 
ealing bee said:
"Shill"? It is always a sign of how weak someones argument is when he/she plays the man, not the ball.

Especially when it's such a pathetic attempt.

Unless defeated before then, surviving armies usually improve with experience - see eg WW1, both sides. Russia had four years to learn the lessons from their early disasters after Barbarossa.

Well if wer'e taking accuracy, then the Soviets called it "The Great Patriotic War", not WW2.
Click to expand...
what snazzy title do they call the bit before Barbarossa? you know, when they shamelessly attacked Finland and Poland

although judging by your posting history you probably think Finland and Poland deserved it
 
smoker said:
You can't negotiate with Putin, he won't honour any treaty as already demonstrated.

The only alternatives are victory or defeat. Either way, if it doesn't result in regime change in Moscow, the sanctions will need to remain and there will be a new Cold War. Cold War 2 will require a major increase in defence spending from NATO countries, e.g. the UK currently spends 2% GDP on defence whereas in 1980 this was 5.5% GDP. A 3.5% of GDP increase would work out as $97.4 billion more, every year, on defence. And that's just the UK.

Ealing Bee is presenting a false dichotomy: war against Russia versus peace with Russia. The latter isn't a serious option with Putin in charge, morally, politically or financially.
Click to expand...
You are a realist. Yippee.
ealing bee said:
As I said, it is much harder to wage an offensive war than a defensive one - as the Russians have found out since Feb.24th!

And besides, Putin doesn't give a stuff how incompetent his troops are, they're just cannon fodder as far as he's concerned, plenty more where they came from.

I mean, they were no more competent eg in WW11, but often they drove the Wehrmacht back by sheer force of numbers, incurring unimaginable casualties, not least by having the KGB behind their own lines, shooting anyone who didn't keep on advancing.

"So far".

How long do you imagine it will go on, and how much destruction will it have caused to Ukraine before it ends?

Apparently they reckoned WW1 would all be over by Christmas.
Click to expand...
When will it end?

A parallel question might be " When will Putin be killed by us or his own people?" Or "When will we kill Putin?" Or "When will the Ukrainians win their war" Or "When will the Ukrainians lose their war" . . . . . . and many other questions.

NATO will never step in. They talk a good fight but they will never put boots on the ground unless a current NATO member is attacked by Putin. He isn't a fool. That would only occur once Ukraine had been beaten. Then we can be sure that NATO countries will be the next targets.

We have been pathetically weak since 2014.
 
Last edited:
70YearsOfHurt said:
You are a realist. Yippee.

When will it end?

A parallel question might be " When will Putin be killed by us or his own people?" Or "When will we kill Putin?" Or "When will the Ukrainians win their war" Or "When will the Ukrainians lose their war" . . . . . . and many other questions.

NATO will never step in. They talk a good fight but they will never put boots on the ground unless a current NATO member is attacked by Putin. He isn't a fool. That would only occur once Ukraine had been beaten. Then we can be sure that NATO countries will be the next targets.

We have been pathetically weak since 2014.
Click to expand...
NATO might not step in as NATO, but we have seen in the past when the general public see civilian's being killed and maimed, countries that are a part of NATO might just step forward.

I think at this time there is zero need for official boots on the ground, Ukraine has troops, its now getting state of the art equipment, this is no longer an easy task for Russia, that boat sailed when the special forces lost control of the Hostomel Airfield near Kyiv.

I dont think we have been weak either since 2014, I think its all smoke and mirrors, it suited the west at that time, we see through out history action or lack of action when it suits, cheap gas and focus elsewhere maybe meant the west wasn't bothered or maybe it was just giving Russia enough rope to hang itself.

I have no doubt in 2014 Russia could have ( and should have if it wanted to take over Ukraine ) invaded and conquered the lands, but they didn't and that give the Ukraine the time to prepare and rearm, which it has done quite well as we all see.

My personal view is the "west" need Russia out the game, for years now the narrative has been that China is the big problem, Russia has handed on a plate the vehicle on which to effectively make sure it has little threat moving forward, allowing the US to focus towards the south China sea, one thing the yanks have is money, throwing it around is nothing to them, this is the perfect outcome, a proxy war that is bleeding the Russians badly, while been seen as the good guys, I bet the US cant believe its luck
Scotty said:
what snazzy title do they call the bit before Barbarossa? you know, when they shamelessly attacked Finland and Poland

although judging by your posting history you probably think Finland and Poland deserved it
Click to expand...

Stalin didn't believe the Germans had attacked, by all accounts he thought he had played Hitler, giving the Russians time to rearm when in fact he had been quite naïve and underestimated him.
Finland and Poland were no walk overs either mind, I bet if not for a war on two fronts thanks to the Germans attacking then Russia, the Poles would have given Stalin a bloody nose imo in a fair fight.
As you cant kill your own command and control and expect to win wars, Putin seems to be just as paranoid as Stalin was and its causing the same issues imo.

Russia has a lot of troops, but I feel without state of the art modern equipment, its going to do them very little good in Ukraine, even if they manage to take over the areas they now want, its going to be Afghanistan again for them, resource and money pit, I cant see with the universal backing Ukraine is getting, them giving up anytime soon.
 
ealing bee said:
As I said, it is much harder to wage an offensive war than a defensive one - as the Russians have found out since Feb.24th!

And besides, Putin doesn't give a stuff how incompetent his troops are, they're just cannon fodder as far as he's concerned, plenty more where they came from.

I mean, they were no more competent eg in WW11, but often they drove the Wehrmacht back by sheer force of numbers, incurring unimaginable casualties, not least by having the KGB behind their own lines, shooting anyone who didn't keep on advancing.

"So far".

How long do you imagine it will go on, and how much destruction will it have caused to Ukraine before it ends?

Apparently they reckoned WW1 would all be over by Christmas.
Click to expand...
Even if it’s a decade, it’s chicken feed
smoker said:
Myth based on WW2.

They've had to increase the military recruitment age to 50, bribe people with 3k+ Rubles a month, form Volunteer battalions no-one wants to join and press-gang Ukrainians from the Donbass.

Russia has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.58 children per woman) and is sitting on a demographic timebomb they're exacerbating with this war.

Ukraine outnumbers Russia 3:2 in infantry. The advantage Russia has is mainly heavy artillery.
Click to expand...
And most of it is poorly maintained
 
Last edited:

Back
Top