Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

Homo homini lupus :that is the essence of life .
As long as there are humans on earth, there will be wars .
And about liberalism : it is a totalitarian ideology (as are all ideologies ) that wants to dominate the whole world ,as did Marxism . Marxism failed and so will liberalism .
 
I see the Russians are saying they captured and destroyed two of Ukraine's Leopards.

If indeed they had captured two Leopards, somehow I don't see them destroying them, they need all the vehicles they can lay their hands on
 
lljadw said:
Homo homini lupus: that is the essence of life.
As long as there are humans on earth, there will be wars.
And about liberalism: it is a totalitarian ideology (as are all ideologies ) that wants to dominate the whole world, as did Marxism. Marxism failed, and so will liberalism.
Click to expand...

I agree that "A man is a wolf to another man"; however, "change is the law of the universe, nothing is permanent but CHANGE." There will be wars, but it is about how we fight battles. Humanity has come a long way since the wheel was invented roughly 6,000 years ago, yet why do people like Putin still hang onto the same idea of the "wheel" 6000 years after? It is long due for Putin to rethink the "wheel." That is, the planet of the earth at the present era has so many issues. Other than ongoing and upcoming military conflicts and power projections, the world faces nuclear proliferation, terrorism, piracy, cybercrime, climate change, poverty, overpopulation, pandemics, and depletion of natural resources (freshwater, fossil fuel, and arable lands). Against this backdrop, toleration, moderation, and peaceful coexistence in one world are the only way forward. We need to "change the global order into a new paradigm."
 
Last edited:
BritinBritain said:
I see the Russians are saying they captured and destroyed two of Ukraine's Leopards.

If indeed they had captured two Leopards, somehow I don't see them destroying them, they need all the vehicles they can lay their hands on
Click to expand...

The Russians make a lot of claims the majority of which are bollocks.
 
Tuan said:
I agree that "A man is a wolf to another man"; however, "change is the law of the universe, nothing is permanent but CHANGE." There will be wars, but it is about how we fight battles. Humanity has come a long way since the wheel was invented roughly 6,000 years ago, yet why do people like Putin still hang onto the same idea of the "wheel" 6000 years after? It is long due for Putin to rethink the "wheel." That is, the planet of the earth at the present era has so many issues. Other than ongoing and upcoming military conflicts and power projections, the world faces nuclear proliferation, terrorism, piracy, cybercrime, climate change, poverty, overpopulation, pandemics, and depletion of natural resources (freshwater, fossil fuel, and arable lands). Against this backdrop, toleration, moderation, and peaceful coexistence in one world are the only way forward. We need to "change the global order into a new paradigm."
Click to expand...

Man will never change and there is no global order and there will never be a new paradigm .
Peaceful coexistence means, implies that the liberal states accept the existence of states with another philosophy,what they refuse, and that they stop their attempts to impose their views over the whole world ,what the American interventionists continue to do .
The former British PM Theresa May said the following on 26 January 2017 : ''The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries to remake the world in our own image, are over . ''
And I add :the days when the Communist block was intervening in sovereign countries to remake the world in their image, were over almost a hundred years ago .
And the days when the Islamists were intervening in sovereign countries to remake the world in their own image ,are also over .
That is the reality : the world will never be as the US .
The world refused to become as the USSR.
The world refuses to become as Iran .
The Declaration of Independence is a myth as is the Declaration of Human Rights .
We have no rights ,no one gave us rights ,except the rulers who gave us,unwillingly, some temporary privileges,and if people will have to chose between wealth and liberty , they will always choose wealth.
We can survive without liberty , but we can not survive without a minimum of wealth .
 
The last time I checked the term “leader of the free world” since the end of Cold War has been the president of the United States and the power of the presidency itself, which beholds and defends the entire preceding including liberty, wealth, human rights, democracy et al.
 
lljadw said:
The former British PM Theresa May said the following on 26 January 2017 : ''The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries to remake the world in our own image, are over . ''
And I add :the days when the Communist block was intervening in sovereign countries to remake the world in their image, were over almost a hundred years ago .
And the days when the Islamists were intervening in sovereign countries to remake the world in their own image ,are also over .
That is the reality : the world will never be as the US .
The world refused to become as the USSR.
The world refuses to become as Iran .
The Declaration of Independence is a myth as is the Declaration of Human Rights .
We have no rights ,no one gave us rights ,except the rulers who gave us,unwillingly, some temporary privileges,and if people will have to chose between wealth and liberty , they will always choose wealth.
We can survive without liberty , but we can not survive without a minimum of wealth .
Click to expand...

Please do not try to twist the story around. Contrary to your interpretation, what May stated is this:


May has told US Republicans the UK and America cannot return to "failed" military interventions "to remake the world in our own image".

Suggesting a UK foreign policy shift, she said those days were over but added that the US and UK should not "stand idly by when the threat is real".

She said the two countries must "renew the special relationship for this new age" and "lead together, again".
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38747979
 
Last edited:
I have read the article provided by Tuan. Grant Hammond's article describes the new RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) at that time. The integrated/network of warfare. To put it simple, it is the internet of warfare. All military units (air, ground, naval, space, cyber) are connected and can engage in military operations and actions.

Is this concept working in Ukraine? Somewhat it does when Ukraine gets intelligence support from the West, but this war is an old symmetric war which has turned into a slugger fest. Another thing, it is not easy for outsiders to organize a revolution in other countries even if the US would like to see a regime change in Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other hostile countries, it is not easy to do it.
 
Tuan said:
The last time I checked the term “leader of the free world” since the end of Cold War has been the president of the United States and the power of the presidency itself, which beholds and defends the entire preceding including liberty, wealth, human rights, democracy et al.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as the free world and the US president is not the leader of it .
And in most countries in the world,there is no such thing as human rights, a foreign concept imported and imposed by the US and for this reason rejected by the majority of the world population .
 
Tuan said:
Please do not try to twist the story around. Contrary to your interpretation, what May stated is this:




https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38747979
Click to expand...

My source did not mention '' failed '',besides this is irrelevant .
And that May said that the UK and the US should not remain idle when the threat ( to THEIR interests )was great ,is also irrelevant .
The special relations is a myth,cherished by British media and politicians,Germany is more important for the US than Britain .
The content of her speech was that the failed interventions from Tony Blair and David Cameron ,and from George Bush and Obama should be stopped .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I have read the article provided by Tuan. Grant Hammond's article describes the new RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) at that time. The integrated/network of warfare. To put it simple, it is the internet of warfare. All military units (air, ground, naval, space, cyber) are connected and can engage in military operations and actions.

Is this concept working in Ukraine? Somewhat it does when Ukraine gets intelligence support from the West, but this war is an old symmetric war which has turned into a slugger fest. Another thing, it is not easy for outsiders to organize a revolution in other countries even if the US would like to see a regime change in Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other hostile countries, it is not easy to do it.
Click to expand...

Yeah Sun Tzu for millennials.
As I mentioned this is not a "modern" war you could have seen the same thing in the American Civil war around Richmond, Vicksburg etc.
The wars that article was about were one sided conflicts, Falklands ground war, Gulf War I and II where the side with the professional force, technology and training dictated the terms but those wars are few and far between.
 
Tuan said:
Please do not try to twist the story around. Contrary to your interpretation, what May stated is this:




https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38747979
Click to expand...

I think it depends on your source, I can find a similar quote to lljadw's one...
This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over.
Click to expand...

In the UK defence journal.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/theresa-may-era-britain-us-intervening-sovereign-countries/
 
It is not about the source, Monty; rather, as you can see in the below quote from the same source, what I am reading is different from what you are reading. By and large, it is our improper inference resulting from reading a sentence rather than the entire material available. Moreover, it also depends on each individual who will have their own racial, ethnonational, cultural, social, professional, and experiential biases that have us see things, events, and ideas differently. Perhaps I see these things through the lens of a civilian, while you gentlemen see things as service personnel. In that case, I am barking at the wrong trees. Over and out.

But even if they do not, our interests will remain. Our values will endure. And the need to defend them and project them will be as important as ever.

So we – our two countries together – have a responsibility to lead. Because when others step up as we step back, it is bad for America, for Britain and the world.

It is in our interests – those of Britain and America together – to stand strong together to defend our values, our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.

This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.

And whether it is the security of Israel in the Middle East or the Baltic states in Eastern Europe, we must always stand up for our friends and allies in democratic countries that find themselves in tough neighbourhoods too.

We each have different political traditions. We will sometimes pursue different domestic policies. And there may be occasions on which we disagree. But the common values and interests that bring us together are hugely powerful.”
Click to expand...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/theresa-may-era-britain-us-intervening-sovereign-countries/
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
It is not about the source, Monty; rather, as you can see in the below quote from the same source, what I am reading is different from what you are reading. By and large, it is our improper inference resulting from reading a sentence rather than the entire material available. Moreover, it also depends on each individual who will have their own racial, ethnonational, cultural, social, professional, and experiential biases that have us see things, events, and ideas differently. Perhaps I see these things through the lens of a civilian, while you gentlemen see things as service personnel. In that case, I am barking at the wrong trees. Over and out.



https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/theresa-may-era-britain-us-intervening-sovereign-countries/
Click to expand...

I would point out that I am not service personnel either.

While I dont disagree with your comment I would say they we were only quoting the semantics of one sentence in an article and as such that is all we had to reference, the link to the article should provide the context for that sentence but it doesnt change the wording.

I do however agree that the difference is mostly in how we interpret English text which is defined by how we are taught it.
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
By the way, I expanded my thoughts on the Russo-Ukarnian war and created a post on my blog. You can find it here:

https://projectofive.ca/2023/02/25/thoughts-on-the-russo-ukrainian-war/
Click to expand...

I don't really place Rousseau in the Realist camp, his perception of humans was too idealistic to be there when he viewed people as being good, but they are prone to be corrupt by the society.

The realist perception about the international anarchy and the national state is the main actor in the international realm has some validity, but the realist theorists often fail to realize the interdependence as long as the realists aren't defensive realists. The liberal theory in IR is often too idealistic and rely too much on international institutions to provide with conflict resolutions. Liberal theorists are also too idealistic about political power and how it corrupts those at the top.

Nye's thoughts about Ukraine isn't really workable right now even though the Ukrainians have won the info war, but we also need to remember. Propaganda is aimed domestically more than internationally. The Russians don't hear much from abroad and even if they do, they don't dare to say something. The war is a slugger fest which consume a lot of ammunition and soft power has no or a very little effect on the war right now.
 
Both sides are fighting pretty hard for the city of Bakmuth. A city with limited strategic value and yet both sides are spending military resources to attack and to defend it. What's your thoughts about it?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Both sides are fighting pretty hard for the city of Bakmuth. A city with limited strategic value and yet both sides are spending military resources to attack and to defend it. What's your thoughts about it?
Click to expand...

It is hard to know what to think without knowing Ukrainian losses, it certainly has focused Russian resources into one location limiting the scope of the Russian winter offensive and inflicting unsustainable casualties on them, it has also given Ukraine time to train on new equipment.
Hopefully it has been too high a price though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top