Russian invasion of Ukraine

Mr Kobayashi said:
Was their international standing that high before?

State sponsored drug cheating. Poisoning people in the UK with radioactive weapons and nerve agents. Poisoning political opponents in Russia.

Backing the Syrian regime and corrupt dictators in Africa through Wagner.

Why would Russia care about it's standing in the West?

They are ruled by an oligarchy determined to keep their grip on power at all costs.

It's a win. You fight Russia, you pay a heavy price.

If Ukraine had been able to win the regime would have likely collapsed.
Click to expand...

The Russian army was somewhat feared before the war.
It's true strength was an unknown entity, and has now been exposed as a busted flush.
Putin had years to plan and build up his forces. Yet corruption at the highest levels meant that his weapons/equipment just wasn't there.
I'm not sure who was more shocked him or us!

It has been a total embarrassment to Putin/Russia that it hasn't been able to take Ukraine.
Any expansion thoughts he may now have won't include any Nato or well armed country. This mainly thanks to the bravery and heroism of the Ukraine fighters.

I don't think he reckoned on the depth/reach of the sanctions, thinking his gas/oil reliance would keep the world quiet.
Basically, the long term cost to Russia/Russians would mean any victory now would be hollow anyway.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
What an idiotic reply. Ukraine doesn't have the capability to win the war and that's not likely to change. It's been discussed by numerous experts on establishment western outlets. I don't understand Russian so I can't listen to Putin's propaganda and I don't watch Russell Brand or other contrarian grifters etc.

It doesn't matter how much bravado and bluster the brotherhood of patriots in this thread post, the facts are the facts.

Is Europe and America going to give Ukraine more military aid to fight another ineffective summer offensive ? Doesn't seem likely.

Are they then going to inject the money to rebuild the East of Ukraine and Crimea?

The irony is that the longer that Ukraine keeps fighting the weaker her democracy becomes. And then it becomes far more likely that when Ukraine fails to win back significant territory, for people to ask, "what was it all for"?
Click to expand...
You've just proved who the idiot is.
I'm sure its up to the Ukrainians to decide - yes or no?
I just love folks asking the Ukrainians to give land and people away to Russia.
As I said above ASK THE UKRAINIANS.
They know you can't trust Russia.
Clearly you don't.
 
BobKowalski said:
Russia already had Crimea and parts of the East was under de facto Russian control through proxies. The purpose of the invasion was to control the whole of Ukraine and was meant to last a week. It wasn’t even technically a war but a ‘Special Military Operation’.

Yet here we are two years later with the likelihood of the conflict going into a third year and beyond, neighbouring countries joining NATO and Russia becoming China’s economic bitch.

Struggling to see a Russian ‘win’ here.
Click to expand...

Or the purpose of the war was to limit the spread of western democracy and to maintain their grip on power. It's a kleptocratic regime. Letting Ukraine become a liberal, western facing country without doing something to stop them would threaten the existence of the oligarchy.

If you are able to achieve Plan B after Plan A fails, it usually counts as a win.

 
BlueAnorak said:
You've just proved who the idiot is.
I'm sure its up to the Ukrainians to decide - yes or no?
I just love folks asking the Ukrainians to give land and people away to Russia.
As I said above ASK THE UKRAINIANS.
Click to expand...

They won't have much choice if their military aid is cut off. The Ukrainians don't get to decide that.

It's not land they control or are currently able to get back. It's a bit like trying to pretend you can get your house back from the mafia.

Where are the military experts that think Ukraine can mount a serious offensive in summer 2024?

It's just bravado and bluster.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
What an idiotic reply. Ukraine doesn't have the capability to win the war and that's not likely to change. It's been discussed by numerous experts on establishment western outlets. I don't understand Russian so I can't listen to Putin's propaganda and I don't watch Russell Brand or other contrarian grifters etc.

It doesn't matter how much bravado and bluster the brotherhood of patriots in this thread post, the facts are the facts.

Is Europe and America going to give Ukraine more military aid to fight another ineffective summer offensive ? Doesn't seem likely.

Are they then going to inject the money to rebuild the East of Ukraine and Crimea?

The irony is that the longer that Ukraine keeps fighting the weaker her democracy becomes. And then it becomes far more likely that when Ukraine fails to win back significant territory, for people to ask, "what was it all for"?
Click to expand...

The EU just unblocked 50bn euro ( 4 years funding ). The US seem to trying to fast track $60bn ( obv not guaranteed) now the bill with the border on is clearly not happening. and the US are also close to legalising sending frozen assets and I suspect other countries will follow. If that happens it’s another $300bn.

While things do currently look bleak on the funding front it’s not over. And there’s a potential glut of funding on the way.
 
Putin feels he cannot allow EUROPE & NATO to control the Black Sea and Russia’s southern flank, especially if he has any dreams of a Soviet-era Russian future.

Europe cannot allow Russia to take the largest country in Europe, take complete control of the Black Sea and consolidate this region with his support in Belarus, and put Russia on Poland’s doorstep…with the Baltics next on the agenda to ensure St Petersburg is safer and he can exert greater control over his western flank. Kaliningrad is a strategic nuclear outpost on the Baltic Sea, giving the Russian Navy quick, ice free, access to all of Northern Europe and the Russian ground-based nuclear arsenal its most dangerous touch point with Europe & NATO.

As it is, LLE are essential as a European annex surrounded by Belarus and Russia. With Kaliningrad to the South and the only European access being the 65 km Suwalki Gap from Poland, it feels almost natural for Russia to want that land. Therefore, it is not lost on me that long “neutral” Finland, wishing to protect their massive, and massively vulnerable, eastern border with Russia, is now seeking fast track NATO membership.

The Murmansk peninsula is not only the HQ for the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet, due to Murmansk’s ice free port, but also gives it quick access to Northern Europe, America and to patrol of the entire Polar cap. Russia has made it a focus of its western-facing nuclear arsenal, and thus it is very wary of it being very easily cut off from the rest of Russia with only a minor (in terms of distance) insurgence from Finland, with the major route to the region coming from St Petersburg to the south, which is itself very vulnerable from any European movement eastwards.

In that larger context, it is imperative that the USA & Europe support, protect and fund the defence of the Ukrainian homeland and repel and expel Russia. Such a coordinated action would send the serious message that Russia will face a strong, united, deadly NATO with any Russian aggression.

Now is not the time to show any lack of resolve towards Ukraine. Pay now or pay much, much more later!
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Well it sort of is about what you think (and thereby post) on a forum, which invites a response from other posters. That’s sort of how it works.

I listened to what he said and he was pretty strident about the trust issue. It’s a fundamental basis for any negotiation, if it’s going to be worthwhile, that you believe other party will broadly keep to whatever is agreed, otherwise what is the point? This trust issue has to be hugely amplified through Ukrainian eyes given what they gave up in exchange for assurances from Russia in the early ‘90s, and what had happened in 2014. They were completely justified and proportionate in holding huge levels of suspicion towards Russia before the invasion in February 2022, much more so afterwards.

Never got a problem with anyone calling Johnson a ****, but the suggestion that he had the power or influence alone to define the outcome, especially when the US were/are in the picture, seems fanciful at best. Not saying he didn’t intervene in the way suggested, but whether he caused the talks to collapse seems extremely unlikely as it would have to be predicated on the basis there was a genuine willingness on behalf of the Ukrainians to do a deal, which they were subsequently persuaded by Johnson to resile from. Given what had happened to their country, the way they had defended Kyiv, and what was at stake, existentially for them as a nation, this seems extremely unlikely to me.

Causation is the issue here.
Click to expand...
Course it is but what we are talking about here is how a prospective peace deal was torpedoed. As I said earlier Johnson was just the messenger boy, he wasn't acting unilaterally.

The reality is, to the denial of many on here, that there was one big gaping hole in the Ukrainian position that was untenable to Western powers.

 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Or the purpose of the war was to limit the spread of western democracy and to maintain their grip on power. It's a kleptocratic regime. Letting Ukraine become a liberal, western facing country without doing something to stop them would threaten the existence of the oligarchy.

If you are able to achieve Plan B after Plan A fails, it usually counts as a win.

Click to expand...
But the 'western' president of Ukraine is now stronger and more well supported in Ukraine than before the war and other countries in close proximity are joining nato so it's done the exact opposite
 
117 M34 said:
But the 'western' president of Ukraine is now stronger and more well supported in Ukraine than before the war and other countries in close proximity are joining nato so it's done the exact opposite
Click to expand...
I just cannot see how, if stumps were draw today, how anyone could characterise Russia as winners, especially given their objectives and expectations at the start of the war.

It would be akin to City starting a PL campaign, having a points deduction half way through the season, a two year transfer embargo, being hit by a massive financial penalty, losing some of our best players in January, then avoiding relegation on the last day and describing it as a great season.
 
BobKowalski said:
Russia already had Crimea and parts of the East was under de facto Russian control through proxies. The purpose of the invasion was to control the whole of Ukraine and was meant to last a week. It wasn’t even technically a war but a ‘Special Military Operation’.

Yet here we are two years later with the likelihood of the conflict going into a third year and beyond, neighbouring countries joining NATO and Russia becoming China’s economic bitch.

Struggling to see a Russian ‘win’ here.
Click to expand...
There clearly isn't one, they have badly damaged Ukraine and caused tens of thousands of deaths. But Russia have not benefited at all in any way from this, just lost out in so many areas, its been a disastrous miscalculation by Putin and his cohorts.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Putin feels he cannot allow EUROPE & NATO to control the Black Sea and Russia’s southern flank, especially if he has any dreams of a Soviet-era Russian future.

Europe cannot allow Russia to take the largest country in Europe, take complete control of the Black Sea and consolidate this region with his support in Belarus, and put Russia on Poland’s doorstep…with the Baltics next on the agenda to ensure St Petersburg is safer and he can exert greater control over his western flank. Kaliningrad is a strategic nuclear outpost on the Baltic Sea, giving the Russian Navy quick, ice free, access to all of Northern Europe and the Russian ground-based nuclear arsenal its most dangerous touch point with Europe & NATO.

As it is, LLE are essential as a European annex surrounded by Belarus and Russia. With Kaliningrad to the South and the only European access being the 65 km Suwalki Gap from Poland, it feels almost natural for Russia to want that land. Therefore, it is not lost on me that long “neutral” Finland, wishing to protect their massive, and massively vulnerable, eastern border with Russia, is now seeking fast track NATO membership.

The Murmansk peninsula is not only the HQ for the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet, due to Murmansk’s ice free port and its quick access to Northern Europe, America and patrol of the entire Polar cap. Russia has made it a focus of its western-faced nuclear arsenal, and thus it is very wary of it being very easily cut off from the rest of Russia with only a minor (in terms of distance) insurgence from Finland, with the major route to the region coming from St Petersburg to the south, which is itself very vulnerable from any European movement eastwards.

In that larger context, it is imperative that the USA& Europe support, protect and fund the defence of the Ukrainian homeland and repel and expel Russia. Such a coordinated action would send the serious message that Russia will face a strong, united, deadly NATO with any Russian aggression.

Now is not the time to show any lack of resolve towards Ukraine. Pay now or pay much, much more later!
Click to expand...
Finland aren't as vulnerable as you think, they stood up well to soviet aggression in 1940. They would do the same today I am sure especially after the abyssmal showing of Russian military capabilities in Ukraine. The mask of Russian superpower has well and truly slipped, as am sure it's been a real eye-opener for western militaries to see at first hand how poorly equipped and trained the Russian military actually is. They have probably learnt more in the last two years than the last 40 since the end of the afghan soviet war.
 
Postman Pep said:
Lol. Is that all you've got. Smears and no links.
Click to expand...
BlueAnorak said:
An article on the Russian perspective on peace negotiations (there are many more):
Guess who said Niet?
Click to expand...
Oh look I posted a link on the subject from Reuters about the Russian Chief negotiators thoughts on the subject on p571
It was Putin who said no, NOT Zelensky.
So yes a deal was negotiated but the Ukraine negotiators OPINION on why it failed is bollox - as is the conspiracy theory that has grown up around his OPINION.
 
Last edited:
Mr Kobayashi said:
They won't have much choice if their military aid is cut off. The Ukrainians don't get to decide that.

It's not land they control or are currently able to get back. It's a bit like trying to pretend you can get your house back from the mafia.

Where are the military experts that think Ukraine can mount a serious offensive in summer 2024?

It's just bravado and bluster.
Click to expand...
So you think Russia are going to roll west and take Ukraine?? Clearly they are not capable of doing this even against limited Ukrainian defense.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Finland aren't as vulnerable as you think, they stood up well to soviet aggression in 1940. They would do the same today I am sure especially after the abyssmal showing of Russian military capabilities in Ukraine. The mask of Russian superpower has well and truly slipped, as am sure it's been a real eye-opener for western militaries to see at first hand how poorly equipped and trained the Russian military actually is. They have probably learnt more in the last two years than the last 40 since the end of the afghan soviet war.
Click to expand...
I would agree with the academic thought, but when you translate that to lives lost to defend the 800 mile border, I think Finland would like to enjoy the deterrent that is inherent in NATO membership.

As you rightly stated, the Finnish people stood up to be counted when it mattered and surprised many with their resolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top