Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

MontyB said:
So are you saying we should have let Hitler do his thing because we didn't stop the crusades and to avoid appearing "woke"
Your entire argument completely ignores the fact that as a species we learn and our perception of right and wrong changes with experience, there is no doubt that our responses to certain events is also largely driven by political expediency but for the most part as the "people" gain more of a voice they tend to be opposed to wars for any reason.

But once again what my country or anyone else country did in the last 100 to 5000 years does not make the Russian invasion of Ukraine any more acceptable so we have picked a side now it's time to see how that plays out (doesn't sound all that "woke" to me).
Click to expand...

Perception of right or wrong has no place in international politics,because this perception leads inevitably to WW3 and the end of mankind .
There are two different reasons for intervening in a war
1 A attacks B and if A wins,it is a threat for our interests .This is the policy intelligent people are following .
B Moral reasons :a war of A against B is bad because A is a dictatorship ,if you follow this argument, you must intervene in all conflicts on earth which will result in the end of the world and you can't do as A ,you can not invade an other country ,countries as Afghanistan or Iraq .
Britain intervened justifiably in August 1914 when Germany attacked France and Belgium,because this attack threatened Britain's interests,but it remained neutral when Germany attacked Russia,because this attack did not threaten British interests .
The British DOW on Germany because Germany attacked Poland was stupid and suicidal,as the existence of an independent Polish state was not essential to protect British interests .
When Japan invaded China in 1931 and murdered millions of Chinese both US and Britain remained neutral and US did sell Japan the needed war material to kill millions of Chinese .
When the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan, stupid Carter imposed sanctions on the USSR and lost the elections . His successor, Reagan,stopped these sanctions and sold the Soviets again grain .Because ? Because the farmers from Kansas and Nebraska, GOP voters would otherwise lose a lot of money .
Thus from a moral POV there was no need to declare war on Germany in September 1939 .
When Hitler invaded CZ in March 1939 ,there was no British DOW, thus why was there any need for such a DOW in September 1939 ?
The chief responsible was Woodrow Wilson, the American Trotzky, who poisoned the souls of the peoples of Europe by lying that the aim of US participation in WW! was to make the world save for (US liberal ) democracy .
And it is a fact that Wilson openly defended the Jim Crow laws .
 
MontyB said:
It isn't really an issue as neither Russia, Ukraine nor USA have signed the agreement to stop production or usage, Russia is trying to create a moral ambiguity where they get to use them but it is unfair that someone might fire some back, much like Putin's nonsense claiming NATO promised not to expand eastward beyond Germany as the justification for the invasion.
Click to expand...

Russia has been whining since the beginning of the war and called the West's support for a declaration of war. The latest I heard was about the F-16 because the F-16 can carry nukes
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Russia has been whining since the beginning of the war and called the West's support for a declaration of war. The latest I heard was about the F-16 because the F-16 can carry nukes
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing for the Russians is that they have cried wolf once too often, there have been numerous "red lines" that not only have been crossed they have disappeared in the wests rear view mirrors.

We have pro-Russian types here who insist on releasing all the daily Russian talking points and get rather hostile when their claimed successes and threats are laughed at because they all turn out to be rubbish...
To date:
- Zelensky has been killed.
- Zaluzhnyi and Budanov have been killed multiple times but keeps showing up at meetings.

- More Himars have been destroyed than have been made.
- Ukraine's Su-25s have been destroyed so they can't launch the Storm Shadow yet they keep hitting targets.
- Leopards and Bradley's were being destroyed before they even arrived in Ukraine.

At this stage I am not sure I would believe a Russian if they told me Moscow was their capital.
 
MontyB said:
The unfortunate thing for the Russians is that they have cried wolf once too often, there have been numerous "red lines" that not only have been crossed they have disappeared in the wests rear view mirrors.

We have pro-Russian types here who insist on releasing all the daily Russian talking points and get rather hostile when their claimed successes and threats are laughed at because they all turn out to be rubbish...
To date:
- Zelensky has been killed.
- Zaluzhnyi and Budanov have been killed multiple times but keeps showing up at meetings.

- More Himars have been destroyed than have been made.
- Ukraine's Su-25s have been destroyed so they can't launch the Storm Shadow yet they keep hitting targets.
- Leopards and Bradley's were being destroyed before they even arrived in Ukraine.

At this stage I am not sure I would believe a Russian if they told me Moscow was their capital.
Click to expand...

And all the nuclear threats. I must say the Russians are pretty good at hitting playgrounds and other civilian targets while leaving the Ukrainian logistics intact. The Russians aren't able to make the Ukrainian air bases inoperable. Air bases are rather big and not mobile and yet the Ukrainian air force can launch air attacks against the Russians
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
And all the nuclear threats. I must say the Russians are pretty good at hitting playgrounds and other civilian targets while leaving the Ukrainian logistics intact. The Russians aren't able to make the Ukrainian air bases inoperable. Air bases are rather big and not mobile and yet the Ukrainian air force can launch air attacks against the Russians
Click to expand...

That is a bit harsh, they have had a good deal of success hitting shopping malls and hospitals.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Russia has been whining since the beginning of the war and called the West's support for a declaration of war. The latest I heard was about the F-16 because the F-16 can carry nukes
Click to expand...

This is only propaganda (there is a war going on ) and Western propaganda is even worse : see The Telegraph of yesterday where Daniel Hannan said that one should take away Russia's nuclear weapons .
 
MontyB said:
That is a bit harsh, they have had a good deal of success hitting shopping malls and hospitals.
Click to expand...


I'm always telling myself. Don't underestimate the Russians, but it is getting harder and harder to not do that.

They have showed some competence during the Ukrainian counter offensive, but I think the Ukrainians are doing something else. There is a correlation between attacking and to retake land. But if we think what Sun Tzu said "The supreme art of war is to subdue an enemy without fighting" To destroy the enemy's ability to fight is to subdue him and I think the Ukrainians are doing just that with hitting the Russian logistics. Sooner or later the Russians cannot continue without food, ammunition, fuel, medical support, and repairs.
 
MontyB said:
but for the most part as the "people" gain more of a voice they tend to be opposed to wars for any reason.

.
Click to expand...

It is the opposite : more democratization means an increase of ideologization of society, thus more wars .
Between 1865 and 1917 US was involved in only one war (1898 :war with Spain ),since 1917 it has been involved in 7 wars :
WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again
Britain was involved in one war :1899 :the Boer War.After WW2 ,it was involved in 5 wars .
Korea,Falkland, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland .
Before 1914 wars were seen as natural,neutral, inevitable, the continuation of politics by other means ,not as a fighting between good and bad .
In 1815 France and Britain were enemies. Forty years later, during the Crimea War, they were allies.And no one after the Crimea War said that the Czar was a criminal who should be judged and condemned by an International Court of Justice .
People and statesmen were realist :the enemy of today is the ally of tomorrow and the opposite .
Today they are fanatical and intolerant ideologues .See Wilson, FDR,Carter, etc....
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I'm always telling myself. Don't underestimate the Russians, but it is getting harder and harder to not do that.

They have showed some competence during the Ukrainian counter offensive, but I think the Ukrainians are doing something else. There is a correlation between attacking and to retake land. But if we think what Sun Tzu said "The supreme art of war is to subdue an enemy without fighting" To destroy the enemy's ability to fight is to subdue him and I think the Ukrainians are doing just that with hitting the Russian logistics. Sooner or later the Russians cannot continue without food, ammunition, fuel, medical support, and repairs.
Click to expand...


I did say before the "counter offensive" begun that I didn't think they were ready but I think they were more or less forced into it by western expectations, I am impressed that Ukraine has been smart enough to scale it back and refocus on destroying Russian logistics I wouldn't be surprised to see them have another go in 4-6 weeks.

I have been seeing some discussion on the idea that the US stopped providing intelligence just prior to the offensive beginning as a punishment for using US gear during the attacks into Russia which left them blind but I am not sure I believe that as it would be a rather petty response.
 
lljadw said:
When the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan, stupid Carter imposed sanctions on the USSR and lost the elections .
Click to expand...
Carter lost because he was a pathetic President. USSR invades Afghanistan & Carter announces he's sending 2 squadrons of USAF F-15s to Saudi Arabia, also saying they were unarmed. Sat helplessly while Iran grabbed the Hostages. His Sec. State resigns after Desert One, not because it failed, but because it was attempted. Plus a long list of domestic miscues. The personification of The Peter Principal.
 
George said:
Carter lost because he was a pathetic President. USSR invades Afghanistan & Carter announces he's sending 2 squadrons of USAF F-15s to Saudi Arabia, also saying they were unarmed. Sat helplessly while Iran grabbed the Hostages. His Sec. State resigns after Desert One, not because it failed, but because it was attempted. Plus a long list of domestic miscues. The personification of The Peter Principal.
Click to expand...

''Intervened ''would be better than ''invaded '',because Afghanistan was in 1979 not an independent sovereign state ,but since decades a Soviet satellite ,with a lot of Soviet ''advisors ''.
One can draw a comparison with South Vietnam.
There was a double ''civil war '' in Afghanistan in 1979 .
1 The local Quislings were fighting against each other .
2 A big part of the population opposed the plans of the ruling Quislings to transform the country in a communist state .
The Kremlin decided to eliminate the Afghan hardliners and sent the Spetsnatz .The result was that the Afghan state collapsed and that the Soviets sent ( initially ) a small force .They hoped that the new,more moderate regime, would be able to take over after a few months and that they could go home .
What they totally underestimated and should have known from the experience of the US in Vietnam ,was that the insurrection increased ,as a big part of the population that remained neutral when the local Quislings were killing each other,took arms to fight against what they considered as an invasion of their country by foreigners .
The rebellion was now and anti communist and nationalist .
The Soviets should have known that when a local ruler has to ask for foreigners to help him against a revolt of the population , he will lose because sooner or later the foreigners will leave and it will be over .
US should also have known this ,but ,for the same reasons as the Soviets, it refused to accept reality,with the result we know in Afghanistan .
A lot of Afghans who did not support the Taliban or were hostile to the Taliban,opposed the US presence in their country because they were convinced that some people in DC wanted to transform Afghanistan in a liberal democracy with equal rights for women, etc .
Mutatis mutandis the same thing happened when the Soviets arrived in Afghanistan .
 
MontyB said:
I did say before the "counter offensive" begun that I didn't think they were ready but I think they were more or less forced into it by western expectations, I am impressed that Ukraine has been smart enough to scale it back and refocus on destroying Russian logistics I wouldn't be surprised to see them have another go in 4-6 weeks.

I have been seeing some discussion on the idea that the US stopped providing intelligence just prior to the offensive beginning as a punishment for using US gear during the attacks into Russia which left them blind but I am not sure I believe that as it would be a rather petty response.
Click to expand...

The west provides with better and better systems, but it has been a slow process and if west wants Ukraine to win the war they must allow Ukraine to hit targets further away from the battlezone. If the US stopped to provide with intel to punish Ukraine sounds odd.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The west provides with better and better systems, but it has been a slow process and if west wants Ukraine to win the war they must allow Ukraine to hit targets further away from the battlezone. If the US stopped to provide with intel to punish Ukraine sounds odd.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think it sounds rather petty.

Anyway it seems as though there has been another attack on the Kerch Bridge and by the sounds of it a successful one with reports of one of the piers being down.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
 
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, it looks to have more damage now than the last time. The Ukrainians should try to destroy the railroad section of it.
Click to expand...

I think this is more about symbolism than military necessity, basically they don't have the ability to destroy it completely so they are causing disruption and fear until they can destroy it.
 
MontyB said:
I think this is more about symbolism than military necessity, basically they don't have the ability to destroy it completely so they are causing disruption and fear until they can destroy it.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I thought first the bridge was hit by a Stormshadow missile, but it seems it was hit by a naval drone or the device was fired from one. Ukraine wants to show some sort of success due to the slow progress of the counter offensive, but I think the Ukrainians approach is rather successful when they trash the Russian logistics first, quite similar as what they did around Kharkiv and Kherson earlier.

The mines are probably the main reason for why the Ukrainians aren't attacking in a more traditional way. However, it is easier to defend than to attack so the Russians have an advantage there.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
That makes sense. I thought first the bridge was hit by a Stormshadow missile, but it seems it was hit by a naval drone or the device was fired from one. Ukraine wants to show some sort of success due to the slow progress of the counter offensive, but I think the Ukrainians approach is rather successful when they trash the Russian logistics first, quite similar as what they did around Kharkiv and Kherson earlier.

The mines are probably the main reason for why the Ukrainians aren't attacking in a more traditional way. However, it is easier to defend than to attack so the Russians have an advantage there.
Click to expand...

I guess the logical option would be the ATACMS M48/57 or the PrSM although I doubt they would hand over one of those given how new they are.

It is also arguable that each of these attacks is likely weakening the structural integrity throughout the bridge as localised damage puts pressure and increased wear in other locations, it could just fail on its own at some stage.
 
MontyB said:
I guess the logical option would be the ATACMS M48/57 or the PrSM although I doubt they would hand over one of those given how new they are.

It is also arguable that each of these attacks is likely weakening the structural integrity throughout the bridge as localised damage puts pressure and increased wear in other locations, it could just fail on its own at some stage.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians can try to hit the railroad bridge while it has a train on it. If they hit the support structure the weight of the train can contribute to a major failure of the bridge, but that is easier said than done.
 
With so many loses of men and material, Putin is now calling up 70 year old's to fight the Ukrainians, if that's not an admission of defeat I don't know what is. What next T34's with a new coat of paint?
 
BritinBritain said:
With so many loses of men and material, Putin is now calling up 70 year old's to fight the Ukrainians, if that's not an admission of defeat I don't know what is. What next T34's with a new coat of paint?
Click to expand...

They probably want to use people with the experience of being the crew of the T-34 instead of training new recruits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top