Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

I agree with the rest of your post but I'm not sure about this. What is a win? If Ukraine exits tomorrow or several months, years down the line, will Ukrainians see it as a win. I think they will. I think they will celebrate/commemorate this period as a win against political dictatorship, the influence of Russian rule and a fresh start for their Nation.

Without doubt the deaths of thousands will never be recoverable or forgotten but Cities just like after WW2 can be rebuilt and a nation can become stronger economically. 

Well, perhaps that will happen. But I'd say that only 20 years later, if it does, will anyone really be able to say "yeah, they came out of it alright", but equally, a whole number of different scenarios could arise, even if the Russians do get chased out of Ukraine, as I hope they are.

[chrisp65]

28 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Russia’s losses in ww2 weren’t what you think. At least half of that were ex-Soviet states, Ukraine lost 8 million men in ww2 alone. Russia used their Western republics as cannon fodder until Germany got to Russian borders.

Ok, if we take that at face value, let’s go conservative and say 10 million died from what is currently within the borders of Russia, that’s still a big number and the same point stands. That’s still over 10 times the losses the UK had. That’s still 10 million dead in living memory which I’d have thought would put a country off war for a while. It’s an odd point to take out of the whole piece, before even debating whether we can describe deaths within 1939 Russian borders as ‘Russian’.

Let’s not re write history because we don’t like Putin.

[magnkarl]

43 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Ok, if we take that at face value, let’s go conservative and say 10 million died from what is currently within the borders of Russia, that’s still a big number and the same point stands. That’s still over 10 times the losses the UK had. That’s still 10 million dead in living memory which I’d have thought would put a country off war for a while. It’s an odd point to take out of the whole piece, before even debating whether we can describe deaths within 1939 Russian borders as ‘Russian’.

Let’s not re write history because we don’t like Putin.

I don’t like Stalin either, which is pretty much who Putin wants to be.

Glorifying the red army who were on par with Hitlers army when it comes to brutality isn’t doing anyone any favours. Russian army tactics stem from Stalin’s tactics.

Ex-Soviet republics find it extremely insulting for their millions of dead in ww2 to be lumped together with ethnic Russians who have always mistreated them. Which is the sole reason why Russia is even built up to the standard it is now, it’s exploited pretty much everyone around them since Alexander. It’s still an empire that controls, suppresses and ethnically cleanses(ie Tatars) to this day.

History is too kind on Russia. It’s a place that has mistreated its people, their neighbours and anyone not ethnic Russian for as long as it’s existed.

Edited January 7, 2023 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

Ok, it still feels like this what not the point of what I was saying, but if you would like to let me know what dates you recognise for the official size and shape of Russia and the official size and shape of Ukraine then perhaps we can make some progress from there.

 

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Ok, if we take that at face value, let’s go conservative and say 10 million died from what is currently within the borders of Russia, that’s still a big number and the same point stands. That’s still over 10 times the losses the UK had. That’s still 10 million dead in living memory which I’d have thought would put a country off war for a while. It’s an odd point to take out of the whole piece, before even debating whether we can describe deaths within 1939 Russian borders as ‘Russian’.

Let’s not re write history because we don’t like Putin.

I really need to add some historical facts. 

The USSR is said to have lost 27 million in WW2.  A significant amount of those loses were inflicted by the USSR themselves.  They killed their own troops who retreated, killed civilians and soldiers who surrendered to the Nazis, staged fight to the death defences that achieved nothing, staged reckless attacks with unnecessary deaths and prevented their own civilians leaving besieged cities. 

The USSR list 27 million because it was racing against the West to seize as much of Europe as they could.  Millions of deaths meant nothing if they could seize land. 

Does that sound familiar?

Russia is very quick to distance itself from the crimes of Stalin.

 "He was a Georgian."

"That was the USSR not Russia."

 Yet Stalin is entombed in Moscow.  Strange. 

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling mishsteaks

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2019. 

 

 

[tinker]

6 hours ago, bickster said:

What do you think the EU should be doing that it isn’t?

They need to send tanks for a start. 

2 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Why do they need to wait on Germany to do the same? Is there an agreement when they purchased them that they need permission to send them to another state?

 

[tinker]

6 hours ago, Enda said:

Strong disagree. I’m Irish, and Ireland (rightly or wrongly) is neutral. That’s our decision. Brussels can f-off if they think of doing anything militarily we don’t agree with. We retain a veto on military action. Foreign policy is rightly devolved to the member states.

Now I’m actually against Ireland’s defence policy and think we should join NATO, but it’s not the EU’s place to tell us different.

It's ok being neutral until it's you that's being attacked. Some countries fight wars and push back on oppression from other countries and others sit on their hands, from a selfish point of view I wouldnt want my child to fight in a war but both my  grandads did and the whole world should be grateful of that.

If you can't see how France and Germany, the leading force behind the EU, have hesitated and played soft ball with Putin then I can't help you , just Google it. Boris for all his wrongs made his position (and ours) clear from the start.  

[bickster]

41 minutes ago, tinker said:

They need to send tanks for a start. 

The EU doesn't have any tanks, it's an economic union.

The EU has sent more financial and humanitarian aid per GDP than the US because that's all it can do. It has sanctioned Russia and it's oligarchs, it has cut off Russian banks from the International banking system. I really don't understand what it is you want them to do that they actually can do but aren't. They can't send imaginary tanks

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I really need to add some historical facts. 

The USSR is said to have lost 27 million in WW2.  A significant amount of those loses were inflicted by the USSR themselves.  They killing their own troops who retreated, killed civilians and soldiers who surrendered to the Nazis, staged fight to the death defences that achieved nothing, staged reckless attacks with unnecessary deaths and prevented their own civilians leaving besieged cities. 

The USSR list 27 million because it was racing against the West to seize as much of Europe as they could.  Millions of deaths meant nothing if they could seize land. 

Does that sound familiar?

Russia is very quick to distance itself from the crimes of Stalin.

 "He was a Georgian."

"That was the USSR not Russia."

 Yet Stalin is entombed in Moscow.  Strange. 

 

Churchill had a pretty despicable view of parts of the British Empire as well didn’t he? It seems par for the course for rulers back then. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Churchill had a pretty despicable view of parts of the British Empire as well didn’t he? It seems par for the course for rulers back then. 

Correct.  
But during WW2 the British (and particularly Montgomery) were often criticised for their cautious approach which was designed to minimise casualties.  After the slaughter of WW1 Britain could not take the slaughter of another generation. 
 

[Enda]

1 hour ago, tinker said:

It's ok being neutral until it's you that's being attacked. Some countries fight wars and push back on oppression from other countries and others sit on their hands, from a selfish point of view I wouldnt want my child to fight in a war but both my  grandads did and the whole world should be grateful of that.

If you can't see how France and Germany, the leading force behind the EU, have hesitated and played soft ball with Putin then I can't help you , just Google it. Boris for all his wrongs made his position (and ours) clear from the start.  

As it happens, my grandad also fought in a war against oppression from another country. That oppressor was very close to home.

France and Germany have of course played soft. I can see that. I’d applaud them if they did more, but that’s different than the tanks coming from the EU. Not being rude here, but you can see why I make a fuss between the tanks having French or German flags on them versus them having EU flags, yeh? Once it’s an EU flag, I’m involved. I don’t want the EU making that decision for me/my country.

[Awol]

4 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Why do they need to wait on Germany to do the same? Is there an agreement when they purchased them that they need permission to send them to another state?

Correct. If a state manufacturers and sells arms to another state, the buyer cannot re-export them to a third party without permission of the state that sold them initially.

Spain wanted to send Leo 2s several months ago and was told by the Germans not to ask. Now the Finns have publicly put it on Scholz’s toes (if they, Visegrad 24 is pretty unreliable and I haven’t checked other sources today) then he’s in a difficult position with his own party and with his allies.

The combination of Leo 2 with Bradley and Marder is very, very bad news for the Russians. But even more than main battle tanks they need more artillery, and the ammunition for it. 

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

The spirit of Ukrainians  

[bickster]

Have you heard the stories about the Russian advance to Soledar yesterday? (more on thread)

 

[avfc1982am]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Have you heard the stories about the Russian advance to Soledar yesterday? (more on thread)

 

Yes, well aware of this today. Now they can't get through Bakhmut they've pushed North into the outskirts of Soledar rather easier. Ukraine really need to hold this northern region of Bakhmut and the salt mines which act as the perfect network in which to conduct operations and protect troops. The other thing about Soledar is it's being defended by one Ukrainian battalion compared to Bakhmut which has several battalions defending it.

Soledar could be far worse for the Russians if they push too quickly into the area as they can get caught by a rear guard action. That makes any retreat very difficult should the situation become untenable. If Ukrainians are purposely letting them move forward into this area then the shit show could get far worse for Russia. I am sceptical about this though. 

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

The spirit of Ukrainians  

Yeah, it is wonderful. Until a few Russians turn up and slaughter your family for putting them in danger. Then it becomes stupid irresponsible behaviour. 

[magnkarl]

6 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Ok, it still feels like this what not the point of what I was saying, but if you would like to let me know what dates you recognise for the official size and shape of Russia and the official size and shape of Ukraine then perhaps we can make some progress from there.

 

 

Here’s how Ukraine looked before the Red Terror started in the 20s, in which Ukraine was once again conquered by a foreign power.

In the period that followed, millions of Ukrainians were first executed by the red army, then the country was starved to death by Russia, and used as cannon fodder when Germany attacked later.

[chrisp65]

OK, if you’ve decided ‘1920’s’ defines Ukrainian territorial borders you’ll have to be a bit more specific, it changed size and shape every year around then.

I’m not familiar with your map but if the red shading is your suggested size of Ukraine, I’m guessing it must be or there’s no other reason to post it, it suggests it would include Orenburg, currently Russian just north of Kazakhstan, a thousand mile drive eastward from the current Ukraine border. I think most would consider that a stretch.

Is this what you really want to obsess on? I’d already agreed to cut the number of dead Russians I’d cited from 27 million to any number you fancied. 

 

 

 

 

 

[magnkarl]

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

OK, if you’ve decided ‘1920’s’ defines Ukrainian territorial borders you’ll have to be a bit more specific, it changed size and shape every year around then.

I’m not familiar with your map but if the red shading is your suggested size of Ukraine, I’m guessing it must be or there’s no other reason to post it, it suggests it would include Orenburg, currently Russian just north of Kazakhstan, a thousand mile drive eastward from the current Ukraine border. I think most would consider that a stretch.

Is this what you really want to obsess on? I’d already agreed to cut the number of dead Russians I’d cited from 27 million to any number you fancied. 

 

 

 

 

 

The issue came when you conflated 27 million dead Soviet troops for Russian troops, without considering that the nations that are now actually hell-bent on keeping Russia from repeating the slaughter took by far the heaviest casualties in percentage in ww2 and after ww2 from Russian reprisals. Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Slovakia, Czhecia etc. Is it not worth listening to these nations who have hands on experience what Russian leadership does to a country before even thinking of giving parts of Ukraine away?

It’s tone deaf to suggest that anything but a total military defeat in Ukraine will result in some sort of STWC eternal peace, because pretty much the only time a major power stopped their lunacy they were completely beaten and then helped with rebuilding in a democratic way (Nazi-Germany and Japan). On the contrary you won’t find a single nation who’s stopped their wars by being given what they wanted.