Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Genie]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

 

I guess that includes all the dead bodies lying around all over the place.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

I guess that includes all the dead bodies lying around all over the place.

No idea, it seems a bit of a wild claim tbh. 

That leaves 3% of the army to defend the biggest country in the world in terms of area. Also given how the Russian Army relies on the logistics of the rail network to transport everything to the front from all over Russia, a good 50%+ of the army is involved with logistics and not fighting. For 97% of them to be in Ukraine seems like bollocks if you ask me.

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

No idea, it seems a bit of a wild claim tbh. 

That leaves 3% of the army to defend the biggest country in the world in terms of area. Also given how the Russian Army relies on the logistics of the rail network to transport everything to the front from all over Russia, a good 50%+ of the army is involved with logistics and not fighting. For 97% of them to be in Ukraine seems like bollocks if you ask me.

I think it’s some kind of mind game with Putin. 

[villa89]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

 

Good time for China to invade Russia. Easy win. 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, villa89 said:

Good time for China to invade Russia. Easy win. 

I'm rather sceptical of the claim, I don't see how the figure is possible

[chrisp65]

15 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

You consistently read words that aren’t there which causes you to infer meaning that isn’t there.

 

6 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I consistently read articles, viewpoints and hints that this war is somehow the West's fault, and that we're prolonging it to make a buck because we're evil empire-seeking globalists. If that wasn't the intent of your post, which railed against the usual things that the same people rail against, then I apologise.

Apology accepted, no problem, we’ll move on.

6 hours ago, magnkarl said:

 Do you not think it'll cost us more than the little we've given so far in trying to home 30 million Ukrainians if Putin is allowed to do as he pleases in Ukraine and the West has to carry all of the refugees from there?

By chance, what was the motivation for your argument about costs and certain industries (like defense) then, if I may ask?

Yes, if 30 million refugees pitch up in Western Europe this will cost us more and yes it would be a bad thing if Putin is allowed to do as he pleases. But I haven’t argued against that. 

My motivation for my argument? I argued a case that ‘we’ weren’t actually after a quick win. Surely, after 12 months against such allegedly poor demotivated criminal lemming like opposition that is demonstrably true?

I said that a quick win could destabilise Russia and lead to a refugee crisis. i said a quick win wouldn’t suit the arms manufacturers, or posturing politicians, or people that like seeing military stuff on social media. I said it wouldn’t suit the energy companies that are posting record profits.

Which bit of that are you actually disagreeing with? Which bit leads you to think I’m a tankie?

 

 

 

[Genie]

16 minutes ago, villa89 said:

Good time for China to invade Russia. Easy win. 

Putin when he hears about China preparing an invasion

[blandy]

58 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I argued a case that ‘we’ weren’t actually after a quick win. Surely, after 12 months against such allegedly poor demotivated criminal lemming like opposition that is demonstrably true?

Far from it, from my perspective, Chris. I mean Putin was after a quick win, and he didn't get one either. What happens and what we want are 2 different things completely.

From my perspective, as I posted previously, so I'll not labour the point, but "we" don't know what we want. We're reacting to what we see as bad (for all sorts of reasons) - an egregious invasion of a sovereign state by an aggressor, an energy crisis, a humanitarian crisis, threats about nuclear weapons, all kinds of mixed up stuff. And we're muddling along, seemingly worried about starting WW3 or nukes being deployed, while at the same time wanting to support Ukraine, and no doubt "put Russia back in its box" (at the least). I think "we" want it all to stop as soon as possible, but "we" can't make it stop without putting troops on the ground and in the air, with all the consequences that would involve.

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

Far from it, from my perspective, Chris. I mean Putin was after a quick win, and he didn't get one either. What happens and what we want are 2 different things completely.

From my perspective, as I posted previously, so I'll not labour the point, but "we" don't know what we want. We're reacting to what we see as bad (for all sorts of reasons) - an egregious invasion of a sovereign state by an aggressor, an energy crisis, a humanitarian crisis, threats about nuclear weapons, all kinds of mixed up stuff. And we're muddling along, seemingly worried about starting WW3 or nukes being deployed, while at the same time wanting to support Ukraine, and no doubt "put Russia back in its box" (at the least). I think "we" want it all to stop as soon as possible, but "we" can't make it stop without putting troops on the ground and in the air, with all the consequences that would involve.

I think you’ve said the same as me but used more (eloquent) words. That we don’t know what we want is essentially the same as not specifically striving for an identifiable outcome.

If we wanted a quick win, if ISIS had taken that territory and were threatening to carry on the sweep through Poland and beyond then we would have known what we wanted: a quick win. We would have seen bigger bombs, quicker delivery of supplies, tanks, aircraft.

It’s evident that we ‘the west’ have the kit to beat an amateur invasion. That we have chosen not to, for whatever reason, is there for all to see. It’s February 2023 and Russia still holds Ukrainian land.

I completely get the whole array of reasons. But the reasons don’t change the basic fact.

 

[KentVillan]

20 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think you’ve said the same as me but used more (eloquent) words. That we don’t know what we want is essentially the same as not specifically striving for an identifiable outcome.

If we wanted a quick win, if ISIS had taken that territory and were threatening to carry on the sweep through Poland and beyond then we would have known what we wanted: a quick win. We would have seen bigger bombs, quicker delivery of supplies, tanks, aircraft.

It’s evident that we ‘the west’ have the kit to beat an amateur invasion. That we have chosen not to, for whatever reason, is there for all to see. It’s February 2023 and Russia still holds Ukrainian land.

I completely get the whole array of reasons. But the reasons don’t change the basic fact.

 

NATO has explained why the quick win wasn’t an option, though - because it would potentially result in WWIII and nuclear fallout - and because the pro-Ukraine alliance isn’t actually that strong once you move beyond the Baltics and start relying on countries like Germany / France / etc.

The comparison with Isis is actually quite appropriate - having the kit to beat an inferior force isn’t the same as actually being able to do it. You need local knowledge, you need legitimacy, you need political will, etc.

It’s pretty obvious why we haven’t just carpet bombed the entire invading army and nuked Moscow. Why the conspiratorial tones?

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

NATO has explained why the quick win wasn’t an option, though - because it would potentially result in WWIII and nuclear fallout - and because the pro-Ukraine alliance isn’t actually that strong once you move beyond the Baltics and start relying on countries like Germany / France / etc.

The comparison with Isis is actually quite appropriate - having the kit to beat an inferior force isn’t the same as actually being able to do it. You need local knowledge, you need legitimacy, you need political will, etc.

It’s pretty obvious why we haven’t just carpet bombed the entire invading army and nuked Moscow. Why the conspiratorial tones?

So, you’re agreeing we didn’t want a quick win?

 

 

[KentVillan]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So, you’re agreeing we didn’t want a quick win?

I’m more saying it wasn’t feasible within fairly unavoidable parameters (not triggering nuclear war, etc). Obviously in an ideal world we’d want Putin to just back down and turn Russia into a liberal democracy. I don’t know how useful it is to think of this in terms of “wants” when as @blandysays they don’t necessarily align with outcomes (I want a massive cock for example).

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I’m more saying it wasn’t feasible within fairly unavoidable parameters (not triggering nuclear war, etc). Obviously in an ideal world we’d want Putin to just back down and turn Russia into a liberal democracy. I don’t know how useful it is to think of this in terms of “wants” when as @blandysays they don’t necessarily align with outcomes (I want a massive cock for example).

Yep, I’ve written somewhere in the last few pages that what ‘we want’ is a homegrown organic blossoming of democracy in Russia.

Russia 1999, Iraq et al suggest that probably won’t happen and all those people forecasting or hoping for a Putin assassination have no idea what would come next, either in Moscow, or those satellite regions we don’t hear about until we suddenly realise they’re fighting over who owns the potential to make a dirty bomb.

I didn’t think I was being controversial listing some of the benefactors. I was deliberately not going to point out the wealth of Russia and how its consistently proved predictions of its imminent demise wrong. That it hasn’t run out of people, bullets, diesel, credit, friends. I thought that would have been the controversial conversation!

 

 

 

[KentVillan]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, I’ve written somewhere in the last few pages that what ‘we want’ is a homegrown organic blossoming of democracy in Russia.

Russia 1999, Iraq et al suggest that probably won’t happen and all those people forecasting or hoping for a Putin assassination have no idea what would come next, either in Moscow, or those satellite regions we don’t hear about until we suddenly realise they’re fighting over who owns the potential to make a dirty bomb.

I didn’t think I was being controversial listing some of the benefactors. I was deliberately not going to point out the wealth of Russia and how its consistently proved predictions of its imminent demise wrong. That it hasn’t run out of people, bullets, diesel, credit, friends. I thought that would have been the controversial conversation!

Russia’s demise has already happened. It’s an impoverished basket case economy with a small wealthy elite

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I think you’ve said the same as me but used more (eloquent) words. That we don’t know what we want is essentially the same as not specifically striving for an identifiable outcome…

I completely get the whole array of reasons. But the reasons don’t change the basic fact.

If we’ve said the same, I’ve either written badly or misunderstood you. I’m labouring under the impression you think/thought that because, in part, of the influence of defence company lobbyists, bankers, stooge politicians and the like, that the west / we actively want the conflict to drag on. That we know exactly what we want and it’s to drag it all out.

My position is that I don’t believe that is the collective case for the west at all. I do accept that parts of (particularly in the US) “machine” might see it all dragging on as a bonus, or as desirable in order to weaken Russia even more, or because it helps US corporate bodies or arms companies, but I don’t think that’s the case in Europe, more than as a very minority view.  It’s hurting Europe significantly and like I said, most if not all European governments are either pushing for more support for Ukraine to help them win asap (e.g. Poland), or are being as pro-active as possible within their short term thinking and bearing in mind the state of their resources (e.g. UK, Norway etc), or are like Germany and to an extent France stumbling around in shock at the upheaval in what they saw as the natural order of things, but collectively those different takes on it amalgamate into an unfocused, but supportive stance, which rather wishes it would all go away, but also understands that it isn’t going to and is trying to walk a line while spinning plates (domestic pressures, weak military resources, export control laws, Hungarian and Serbian ambivalence, to put it kindly…).

[tinker]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

Russia’s demise has already happened. It’s an impoverished basket case economy with a small wealthy elite

Just like us.

[Xann]

17 minutes ago, tinker said:

Just like us.

Thanks to the mugged off, and they're still chatting shit.

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, tinker said:

Just like us.

No.

 

45 minutes ago, Xann said:

Thanks to the mugged off, and they're still chatting shit.

Lol.

[KentVillan]

Russia had a little over half our GDP per capita, and a worse Gini (inequality) coefficient in 2018. And prison labour, extrajudicial executions, etc etc.

Being angry about what’s happening in the UK is normal, but thinking life here is comparable with Russia is ignorant.

Edited February 15, 2023 by KentVillan

[Xann]

Laugh it up.

Everyone's got a long way to fall yet.