Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, peterw said:

would Russia have invaded if NATO hadn't have put bases on their borders

Yes. It's clear Putin is a total warmonger desperately trying to recreate the USSR as he sees is his right and to feed his ego wanting to go down in history. 

Anything else is just noise. Russia constantly points blame at others to hide the truth of the above. 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, peterw said:

You could of course just as easily argue this the other way, would Russia have invaded if NATO hadn't have put bases on their borders (as they see it) and threatening their security? 

How does a defensive alliance threaten another country's security? Let's really stop talking nonsense  about how Russia see's it. Russia knows only too well that NATO has no intention of threatening their existence, what Russia says in public and what Putin / Russian Military High Command really understands to be the case are most of the time completely different things.

So imagine that Russia really does think that (which it doesn’t) it will now have two more countries even closer to its border as a part of the NATO alliance that it didn’t have before the Feb 22 second phase of its invasion of Ukraine. It's not going well is it if their aim was to move NATO further away.

It really is time that people stopped with this Putin inspired line about Russia feeling threatened. It’s come directly from Putin via the usual shills in organisations like Stop The War and the likes of George Galloway and indeed until very recently by rocket polishers like Farage too.

The argument doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.

 

[Mr_Dogg]

11 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Yes. They would.   This war was never about NATO expansion.    

Switzerland is completely surrounded by NATO.  Are they threatened? 

Many countries have foreign bases on their borders.  Russia is the largest country in the world. Its inevitable that they are surrounded by NATO.  

 

NATO exists to counter Russia. If the anti Swiss alliance surrounded Switzerland then they would feel threatened.

*Absolutely not defending Russian actions or anything they do*

[trekka]

So it finally begins.  It will take a long time before they are used in combat but promising signs.

BBC News

US allows transfer of Danish and Dutch F-16 war planes to Kyiv.

The US has approved the transfer to Ukraine of American-made F-16 fighter jets from Denmark and the Netherlands when Ukrainian pilots are fully trained to operate them.

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Mr_Dogg said:

NATO exists to counter Russia. If the anti Swiss alliance surrounded Switzerland then they would feel threatened.

*Absolutely not defending Russian actions or anything they do*

Counter not attack, it’s important to understand that. The aggression is clearly from the Russian side. The Russians understand that all too well.

Switzerland would have to be an aggressive nation for an anti-Swiss alliance to be formed.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

This war was never about NATO expansion

Mmmm. Yes and a tiny bit no. From Putin’s perspective it’s part of the picture, but not in a threat to Russia type of way, but in a block to his ambitions type of way. With nearby states joining or hoping to join NATO, that puts a complete block on him invading them and re-forming an expanded Soviet Union. As paranoid as he is, I don’t think he’s felt NATO to be a threat to Russia or Russian sovereignty or territory, just an obstacle to his expansionist aims.

There’s also the factor that to join NATO nations need to be (relatively) free and democratic. As more and more neighbouring nations move in that direction, the risks to him and his kleptocracy - from a creeping sense by Russian citizens that “next door seems happier, maybe we could be like that” increase. So that threatens his personal position and wealth.

All sorts of preposterous “reasons” have been presented by Russia for why they invaded Ukraine, from de-nazification through to defending itself from attack by NATO. The reality is none of those things hold water, but NATO is a bulwark against his isolated, paranoid fever dreams and plans of expanding Russia’s (or his) empire.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Mmmm. Yes and a tiny bit no. From Putin’s perspective it’s part of the picture, but not in a threat to Russia type of way, but in a block to his ambitions type of way. With nearby states joining or hoping to join NATO, that puts a complete block on him invading them and re-forming an expanded Soviet Union. As paranoid as he is, I don’t think he’s felt NATO to be a threat to Russia or Russian sovereignty or territory, just an obstacle to his expansionist aims.

There’s also the factor that to join NATO nations need to be (relatively) free and democratic. As more and more neighbouring nations move in that direction, the risks to him and his kleptocracy - from a creeping sense by Russian citizens that “next door seems happier, maybe we could be like that” increase. So that threatens his personal position and wealth.

All sorts of preposterous “reasons” have been presented by Russia for why they invaded Ukraine, from de-nazification through to defending itself from attack by NATO. The reality is none of those things hold water, but NATO is a bulwark against his isolated, paranoid fever dreams and plans of expanding Russia’s (or his) empire.

But again that is a yes and no too. Western liberal democracy isn’t a concept in the sole purview of NATO and before Feb 22 the same democracies bordered Russia as they do today. That threat, I agree is absolutely there to Russia but it isn’t NATO that poses that threat it’s democracy itself. Sure there’s a connection between the two but it isn’t an absolute.which is why the EU is as much if not more of an existential threat to the Russian Regime than NATO. Both bodies are a product of western liberal democracy but it is the EU that poses the threat you talk of much more than NATO. It was the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that sparked Russia's increased activity in Ukraine, it was the thought of yet another country on its border with an awful lot of Russian speakers / relatives becoming likely more prosperous that was the threat. Euromaidan was where Russia started meddling in Ukraine's politics and then later invading under the guise of protecting its people, Ukraine. Western Democracy is the threat you're talking about and the closeness of it to Russia's border. It’s also why Russia quelled the Belarus opposition and installed Lukashenko, around that time Belarus was ahead of the Ukrainian curve in wanting to be a part of the West not East.

NATO really is a product of what he wants to crush, as is the EU but he can’t aim at the EU because it will be all too transparent as to why he’s doing what he's doing and wanting to attack western democracy isn’t going to fly with anywhere near as many people, a military alliance is a much easier target.

So yes I agree but also slightly disagree too. NATO is the excuse not the cause of his ire.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

But again that is a yes and no too. Western liberal democracy isn’t a concept in the sole purview of NATO and before Feb 22 the same democracies bordered Russia as they do today. That threat, I agree is absolutely there to Russia but it isn’t NATO that poses that threat it’s democracy itself. ...

So yes I agree but also slightly disagree too. NATO is the excuse not the cause of his ire.

That's (all) fair. There's a flip to it though. The EU doesn't have a (collective) military force, though obviously individual nations do. The EU has by and large relied on NATO to be its collective military. Before Feb 24th 2022 when he invaded he was demanding various things - 6 from memory, one of which was the withdrawal of NATO forces from various locations in the East of the EU/Europe.  So in his mind, perhaps, it's the collective treaty of an attack on one is an attack on all that is the block to his ambitions. It's splitting hairs really and there's no right or wrong answer, I don't think, just very slightly different takes.

[magnkarl]

On 19/08/2023 at 12:57, blandy said:

That's (all) fair. There's a flip to it though. The EU doesn't have a (collective) military force, though obviously individual nations do. The EU has by and large relied on NATO to be its collective military. Before Feb 24th 2022 when he invaded he was demanding various things - 6 from memory, one of which was the withdrawal of NATO forces from various locations in the East of the EU/Europe.  So in his mind, perhaps, it's the collective treaty of an attack on one is an attack on all that is the block to his ambitions. It's splitting hairs really and there's no right or wrong answer, I don't think, just very slightly different takes.

Surely even Vlad knows how to do some revisionism to realise that it's blown so massively up in his face that it's time to call it quits soon. Due to his idiotic invasion he's now got several times more border with NATO, he's fast tracked two of the 'neutral' states in Europe with sizable armies, tech industries and weapons manufacture into an already extremely powerful NATO and Finland\Sweden have pretty much already guaranteed bases for NATO troops along their borders (yeah I know Sweden doesn't have a border with Russia, but it's close) with Russia together with Norway.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is Hitler going into Stalingrad bad, or Napoleon going for Moscow mid winter ridiculous. Surely he knows a thing or two about how badly that went for two of his role models.

[sne]

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

 

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is Hitler going into Stalingrad bad, or Napoleon going for Moscow mid winter ridiculous. 

Napoleon actually captured Moscow forcing the Russians to abandon the city.   

[chrisp65]

Imagine if Napoleon had captured Russian land, caused mass French unemployment, caused mass French casualties, got all of europe united against France, crashed the value of the Franc, buggered up bread prices, lost some fishing grounds, and got Denmark and Sweden working on technologies together… but France still had a huge swathe of Russian land now.

Who’s the winner?

It’s the line on the map, the rest is stats for nerds.

[magnkarl]

17 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Napoleon actually captured Moscow forcing the Russians to abandon the city.   

The point being that it ruined his army and country, all for his vein goal of taking Moscow, much like Putin's goals in Ukraine is ruining his country.

[magnkarl]

Ukraine gets F-16's, Russia gets tetanus. 

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The point being that it ruined his army and country, all for his vein goal of taking Moscow, much like Putin's goals in Ukraine is ruining his country.

I agree with you entirely. 

As per the post, many people still think that Russia stopped Napoleon reaching Moscow.   Napoleon took Moscow with very few casualties.   Nor was he foolish enough to try in winter.   It was September.  

In the same year the British did something that is rarely mentioned.  We invaded the USA, captured Washington and burnt down much of the city including the White House. 

I was simply posting interesting historical information. 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Added details

[luckyeddie]

59 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Ukraine gets F-16's, Russia gets tetanus. 

 

I thought this was an old episode of Scrapheap Challenge 

[PussEKatt]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

 

In the same year the British did something that is rarely mentioned.  We invaded the USA, captured Washington and burnt down much of the city including the White House. 

 

 

No wonder the Americans carry guns ?!

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 hours ago, PussEKatt said:

No wonder the Americans carry guns ?!

We (the Brits) are very much the reason. 

The US was born after a well armed militia opposed a government they considered to be tyranical. 

 

[bickster]

Reports out there of a fairly big breakthrough by Ukrainian troops in the Zaporizhzhia region (roughly about 5 or 6 hours ago). Obviously unconfirmed at this stage

[one_ian_taylor]

8 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I agree with you entirely. 

As per the post, many people still think that Russia stopped Napoleon reaching Moscow.   Napoleon took Moscow with very few casualties.   Nor was he foolish enough to try in winter.   It was September.  

In the same year the British did something that is rarely mentioned.  We invaded the USA, captured Washington and burnt down much of the city including the White House. 

I was simply posting interesting historical information. 

 

There is a  very old diagram - not quite  a Sankey diagram, bit similar - showing the size of the French army as a line pre Russian invasion and post, with the thickness of the  line reducing  over time. Pre retreat  from Moscow,  the size of the army had already  been massively reduced (halved maybe) by Typhus killing lots of soldiers as the army tooled around Western Russia trying to create  a decisive contribution and then  Borodino. Then Napoleon  waited too long in Moscow (leaving the retreat until after the first snow) and he size size of the army that got home was maybe 1/20th of its original size. 

I'll  try and dig out the diagram.

Anyway, not really on topic, but as you were posting interesting bits about  Napoleon's invasion I thought I'd  follow on