Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

[MontyB]

This is not convin

cing .
1 What are valid reasons for the invasion of a country ? US said that it had valid reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and Russia said that it had valid reasons for invading Ukraine,Turkey (NATO member ) had also valid reasons for invading Cyprus, Syria and Iraq, Israel for invading Egypt,etc... There is no such thing as a valid reason for an invasion of an other country .Everyone has an other opinion about a valid reason .
2 The invasion of Ukraine ( not a NATO member ) is no threat for the West
3 The invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake
as there was no need to invade Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden
as the aim of the invasion of Afghanistan was not the elimination of Bin Laden
as the Russian example had taught that it was impossible to eliminate AQ in Afghanistan
4 You are wrong about Chamberlain : he did not care about Poland, after all the elimination of Poland as an independent state was no threat for Britain and Poles could not vote for or against him , but he was forced to declare war on Germany ,because of the dominating wokeness in Britain,that had its origin in Passendale and the blah blah from W.Wilson who lied that WWI was a war to make the world safe for democracy and because of the strong hostility in Britain to Germany and especially to Hitler : Germany and Hitler had succeeded to make another viable society and to ''prove '' that liberal democracy had failed .
5 About the US invasion of Iraq : US had a valid reason : 9/11 was an attack on the US by Muslim Arabs and the American opinion expected that Bush would do something and kill thousands of Muslims ,otherwise Bush would not be reelected .As Bush could not give the real reason for his invasion, he had to invent another one,what he did .

I never said Chamberlain did care about Poland and he certainly didn't care about Czechoslovakia, I said he drew a line over the invasion of Poland and carried out his promise, essentially he was a politician that kept his word and that is a rare thing.
The rest of it is largely off topic and I only stated my opinion on how I saw the other military actions however I am right when I say all Russia has to do to end this war is leave Ukraine.

Regarding the invasion of Ukraine being no threat to the west, Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev have all insisted they are at war with NATO, Medvedev gets a hard on weekly making threats about nuking London, Putin waffles on in every speech about teaching Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia who is boss. If they are serious and none of their speeches ended with "just kidding" so we can assume they are then I say F**K it let's fight it in Ukraine and end it there.

Simply put the west is making a rod for its own back in trying to be diplomatic with Russia, Russia only understands and respects strength and force and that is what the west needs to show to end this.
Open the Arsenal's to Ukraine and let them have at it, give the them nukes if that's what it takes and if that fails send troops.

 

[lljadw]

Chamberlain did not draw a line over the invasion of Poland , but the anti-German wokes in Britain .He did not move when Japan attacked Nanking and murdered countless Chinese civilians ( FDR also did not move ) .
In November 1937 Chamberlain sent lord Halifax ( which he had chosen as his next foreign secretary, as he regarded Eden as a failure ) to Germany with the message that Hitler could have whole Europe east of the Rhine, as long as it happened without fighting ,because the wokes in Britain considered war as a crime .He tried to get Britain out of war .As did all the other British PM ,as long as Britain's interests were not threatened .
About the invasion of Ukraine being a danger for Britain :this is not correct .
1 a successful invasion will only weaken Russia
2 the invasion has failed ... thus
3 you can't found your reaction on what the Russians are saying, but only on what they are doing .And they do not invade the Baltics, Poland, Romania or Finland ...thus
The Russians can't occupy Ukraine and if they still would do it , it will not be a danger for us .The West was not in danger when /because Ukraine was a part of the USSR . And the West was not more safe when between 1991 and 2022 Ukraine was not a Russian satellite .
That to end the war Russia has only to leave Ukraine, is correct, but irrelevant ,as a war between these 2 countries is not our business ,unless you say that we should intervene in all foreign wars and if we would do this, it would be the end of mankind .
We should be realist and not do as during the Spanish Civil War,when the wokes were yelling : weapons for the anti-Franco Democrats .Or when during the war between Finland and the USSR, the woke media were yelling :weapons for Finland or ,when the Soviets occupied the eastern part of Poland, the media demanded sanctions against Russia .
Even Churchill said that the Soviet invasion of Poland was not a bad thing for Britain .Thus why would the Russian invasion of Ukraine be bad for us ?And that's the only thing that is relevant . Not that it is bad for the Ukrainians .

I never said Chamberlain did care about Poland and he certainly didn't care about Czechoslovakia, I said he drew a line over the invasion of Poland and carried out his promise, essentially he was a politician that kept his word and that is a rare thing.
The rest of it is largely off topic and I only stated my opinion on how I saw the other military actions however I am right when I say all Russia has to do to end this war is leave Ukraine.

Regarding the invasion of Ukraine being no threat to the west, Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev have all insisted they are at war with NATO, Medvedev gets a hard on weekly making threats about nuking London, Putin waffles on in every speech about teaching Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia who is boss. If they are serious and none of their speeches ended with "just kidding" so we can assume they are then I say F**K it let's fight it in Ukraine and end it there.

Simply put the west is making a rod for its own back in trying to be diplomatic with Russia, Russia only understands and respects strength and force and that is what the west needs to show to end this.
Open the Arsenal's to Ukraine and let them have at it, give the them nukes if that's what it takes and if that fails send troops.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I think we are watching the development of a new military doctrine or rather an old one in a new shape.

The West cannot demand the Ukrainians to be successful when they lack the support from the West to do it

 

[MontyB]

I think we are watching the development of a new military doctrine or rather an old one in a new shape.

The West cannot demand the Ukrainians to be successful when they lack the support from the West to do it

I think the Ukrainian offensive started out with the aim of taking land but quickly changed to being one of degrading the Russian ability to launch an offensive of their own while improving their own positions, Ukraine needs more equipment and more training in order to retake larger areas.
I guess the good news in the south is that Russia will also have to get through these minefields before they can attack.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The Kerch bridge has been hit again. I reacted when I saw the Russian air defenses. The Russian claims two missiles were shot down close to the bridge, but missiles aren't flying that high, they are usually flying on a low altitude to make it harder for the air defenses to hit them.

 

[MontyB]

The Kerch bridge has been hit again. I reacted when I saw the Russian air defenses. The Russian claims two missiles were shot down close to the bridge, but missiles aren't flying that high, they are usually flying on a low altitude to make it harder for the air defenses to hit them.

I am not convinced it was "hit", regarding the altitude of the incoming missiles I was under the impression that they were modified S-200s which may explain the altitude.
One thing I don't understand is the smoke dischargers on the bridge, missiles don't have to physically see it to hit it and it's not like it moves around.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I am not convinced it was "hit", regarding the altitude of the incoming missiles I was under the impression that they were modified S-200s which may explain the altitude.
One thing I don't understand is the smoke dischargers on the bridge, missiles don't have to physically see it to hit it and it's not like it moves around.

But does it have the range for it?

 

[MontyB]

But does it have the range for it?

Apparently they may have modified them to 600km...

Russia Shoots Down Ukraine’s ‘Monster Missile’ That Kyiv Modified To Attack Crimean Bridge

On August 12, the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that Kyiv had attempted to target the Crimean bridge using a converted 10-meter-long 'monster missile,' S-200; however, the attack was thwarted as Russian air defense systems detected and intercepted the missile.

www.eurasiantimes.com

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MontyB]

I found this rather interesting...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[George]

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MontyB]

MSN

www.msn.com

The problem is that it isn't strictly true, I don't think any of us thought the German military was in the mess it is with regards to its procurement and supply, it turns out that the military most of Europe and I suspect much of the western world thought was the great bulwark against a Russian invasion had literally nothing to fight with, you can't really expect them to send what they don't have.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the German psyche regarding WW2 is very heavily ingrained, and it has made them incredibly passive and incredibly sensitive to the idea of someone calling them nazi's.

With regards to them not wanting to send missiles unless they can be programmed to avoid Russia itself, Ukraine agreed to the deal, I don't understand it as I think any Russian military target anywhere should be fair game but the deal is the deal.

Overall, I think the Wests failure is largely an American one, if Biden opened the arsenals and said we want Ukraine to win then the rest of the West would do the same but instead he sticks to the line that "We don't want Ukraine to lose" and that is not the same as saying we want them to win.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Most European (NATO) countries believed in the everlasting peace after the cold war. Wars and armed conflicts would be low intensity conflicts and asymmetric wars, which don't require the amount of equipment as what is required during a symmetric war. The war in Ukraine consume a lot of equipment, especially ammunition. Months of production can be used up in a few days or even hours.

However, the West has been irritating slow with providing Ukraine with weapons and other equipment, but the West cannot disarm itself in the process of arming Ukraine. But, Germany's policy to prevent other NATO and other countries with German system to give them to Ukraine can have consequences for the German arm industries. Germany is an economic giant within the European Union, but it isn't a security and defense giant in Europe. There are two other countries that can benefit from it, Poland and South Korea, the latter produce a lot of weapons and can in the long run be a supplier of military equipment. Poland has a well trained military and it is increasing the military

 

[MontyB]

Most European (NATO) countries believed in the everlasting peace after the cold war. Wars and armed conflicts would be low intensity conflicts and asymmetric wars, which don't require the amount of equipment as what is required during a symmetric war. The war in Ukraine consume a lot of equipment, especially ammunition. Months of production can be used up in a few days or even hours.

However, the West has been irritating slow with providing Ukraine with weapons and other equipment, but the West cannot disarm itself in the process of arming Ukraine. But, Germany's policy to prevent other NATO and other countries with German system to give them to Ukraine can have consequences for the German arm industries. Germany is an economic giant within the European Union, but it isn't a security and defense giant in Europe. There are two other countries that can benefit from it, Poland and South Korea, the latter produce a lot of weapons and can in the long run be a supplier of military equipment. Poland has a well trained military and it is increasing the military

I am not sure I agree, I think the West has to either commit to ensuring Ukraine wins or abandon them altogether to reduce the carnage.

Basically it is time to get off the fence.
I can understand the US not wanting to disarm itself as it has the Chinese to deal with in a few years but like it or not Western Europe looks to the US for leadership and as such it is they who have to make the decision as to which side of the fence the West will land on and currently they just don't want to make that call.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I am not sure I agree, I think the West has to either commit to ensuring Ukraine wins or abandon them altogether to reduce the carnage.

Basically it is time to get off the fence.
I can understand the US not wanting to disarm itself as it has the Chinese to deal with in a few years but like it or not Western Europe looks to the US for leadership and as such it is they who have to make the decision as to which side of the fence the West will land on and currently they just don't want to make that call.

That's what I mean with being irritating and frustratingly slow with providing with the tools for the Ukrainians to win the war. The west is complaining about how slow the Ukrainian counter offensive is, but it is to a large degree the west's own fault.

 

[George]

The problem is that it isn't strictly true, I don't think any of us thought the German military was in the mess it is with regards to its procurement and supply, it turns out that the military most of Europe and I suspect much of the western world thought was the great bulwark against a Russian invasion had literally nothing to fight with, you can't really expect them to send what they don't have.

With regards to them not wanting to send missiles unless they can be programmed to avoid Russia itself, Ukraine agreed to the deal, I don't understand it as I think any Russian military target anywhere should be fair game but the deal is the deal.

Overall, I think the Wests failure is largely an American one, if Biden opened the arsenals and said we want Ukraine to win then the rest of the West would do the same but instead he sticks to the line that "We don't want Ukraine to lose" and that is not the same as saying we want them to win.

Germany seems to be a paper mâché tiger. If the war ends "right" the Ukrainians could only hit themselves with the missiles in the future. In the '14 war Obama/Biden only supplied bandaids & V.P. Biden threatened to cut that off if they didn't fire the Prosecutor looking into his son's business dealings. Guess they're lucky getting what they are getting.

 

[MontyB]

Why are you, a citizen of NZL ,pro-Ukrainian and can you not be neutral,as most people on earth ?

Here is someone with almost exactly the views I have about this war and uses an analytical technique I agree with completely.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I admit that when I started looking at his work, I thought he was pro-Russian, but he has turned out to be quite accurate and I think in part my desire to see Ukraine win overcame my objectivity.

Germany seems to be a paper mâché tiger. If the war ends "right" the Ukrainians could only hit themselves with the missiles in the future. In the '14 war Obama/Biden only supplied bandaids & V.P. Biden threatened to cut that off if they didn't fire the Prosecutor looking into his son's business dealings. Guess they're lucky getting what they are getting

Yes and no, I think our expectations of Germany and its capabilities were far higher than they actually were, I think we have put too much weight into what we expected they could do and I believe that our (the West) thinking needs to change, we are still sending "defensive" weaponry, anti-air systems, trucks, vehicle recovery systems, ammunition, very little of which will help Ukraine win.

As I have said we need to get off the fence, if you want to be fighting Russia in the Baltic States or Poland in 5 years then let Ukraine go, if you don't then give them the tools to win because the one thing the twentieth century should have taught us is that letting dictatorships have their way costs a lot more in the end.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Germany and many other NATO/Western countries deactivated their armed forces after the cold war, so low they can't repair and begin to produce and develop new weapons. NATO is demanding all member countries shall have the minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense, but not many of them had that until Russia launched its special military operation. However, this reluctance and delays of providing Ukraine with weapons, especially munitions for the MLRS and HIMARS with a range to hit targets in Russia and even in Crimea. The delay of providing with tanks and now the F-16 only makes it harder for Ukraine to recapture the occupied parts of Ukraine.

 

[MontyB]

Germany and many other NATO/Western countries deactivated their armed forces after the cold war, so low they can't repair and begin to produce and develop new weapons. NATO is demanding all member countries shall have the minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense, but not many of them had that until Russia launched its special military operation. However, this reluctance and delays of providing Ukraine with weapons, especially munitions for the MLRS and HIMARS with a range to hit targets in Russia and even in Crimea. The delay of providing with tanks and now the F-16 only makes it harder for Ukraine to recapture the occupied parts of Ukraine.

I don't disagree and I think Germany in particular seems to have decided to rely heavily on the US for its defence but I still think that many of us thought Germany was the fortress of Europe and never realised that it was just an empty shell but like it or not they can't provide Ukraine with equipment they don't have. This however does not excuse its reluctance to allow others to provide equipment.

I have read today however that the US apparently has agreed to let Holland and Denmark sell F-16 to Ukraine so that ball has started to roll.

USA approves supply of F-16s from Denmark and Netherlands to Ukraine

The United States has officially approved the supply of American F-16 fighter jets from Denmark and the Netherlands to Ukraine after the training of Ukrainian pilots is completed.

www.pravda.com.ua

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I don't disagree and I think Germany in particular seems to have decided to rely heavily on the US for its defence but I still think that many of us thought Germany was the fortress of Europe and never realised that it was just an empty shell but like it or not they can't provide Ukraine with equipment they don't have. This however does not excuse its reluctance to allow others to provide equipment.

I have read today however that the US apparently has agreed to let Holland and Denmark sell F-16 to Ukraine so that ball has started to roll.

USA approves supply of F-16s from Denmark and Netherlands to Ukraine

The United States has officially approved the supply of American F-16 fighter jets from Denmark and the Netherlands to Ukraine after the training of Ukrainian pilots is completed.

www.pravda.com.ua

I would say we all were aware of how Germany let the military decline to almost beyond repair and cannot provide Ukraine with modern equipment. But not letting other countries provide Ukraine with German made weapons caused a lot of irritation and also damaged Germany politically. However, Switzerland did exact the same thing.

The war in Ukraine forced European NATO countries and others to increase the military spending. But most countries cannot increase the military fast. They lack the industrial capacity to increase the production of equipment to provide more soldiers with weapons, vehicles, ammunition, uniforms, etc etc

Countries also lack the trained COs and NCOs to educate new recruits. Countries might also lack facilities to where they can be training new recruits. Old military bases were deactivated after the cold war and now used by others.

There is one thing that have impressed me and that is how the Ukrainians have managed to handle all the different equipment from multiple countries. Their logistical staffs have done an excellent job to get the supply chain working for multiple different vehicles, calibers, and to get their personnel trained to use it all.

 

[MontyB]

I would say we all were aware of how Germany let the military decline to almost beyond repair and cannot provide Ukraine with modern equipment. But not letting other countries provide Ukraine with German made weapons caused a lot of irritation and also damaged Germany politically. However, Switzerland did exact the same thing.

The war in Ukraine forced European NATO countries and others to increase the military spending. But most countries cannot increase the military fast. They lack the industrial capacity to increase the production of equipment to provide more soldiers with weapons, vehicles, ammunition, uniforms, etc etc

Countries also lack the trained COs and NCOs to educate new recruits. Countries might also lack facilities to where they can be training new recruits. Old military bases were deactivated after the cold war and now used by others.

There is one thing that have impressed me and that is how the Ukrainians have managed to handle all the different equipment from multiple countries. Their logistical staffs have done an excellent job to get the supply chain working for multiple different vehicles, calibers, and to get their personnel trained to use it all.

So Ukraine isn't getting the Toblerone?
I would suggest that the German chain dragging will probably create some issues for the German arms manufacturers as well.

I am also noting that the US has already doubled its 155mm shell production and has plans to increase it 3 fold again within a year but even that will still be less than Ukraine is using, Europe really needs to get on with their plans to increase production but as usual it starts with a hiss and a roar and then gets buried in red tape...

EU plans to boost ammunition production to aid Ukraine

The European Union's executive wants to set aside more than 500 million euros ($550 million) to increase ammunition production to help Ukraine and replenish the stocks of EU member countries.

www.reuters.com

Ukraine is buying NATO time as I can't see this ending at the Polish border, to many bridges have been burnt for this to just fade away, either Ukraine wins or Moldova and the Baltic states are next.