Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Javi Garcia's Hairstylist]

Ask the majority of people in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland etc where these weapons are now stationed, if they prefer life today or when they were either directly incorporated into the USSR, or a satellite of it? In fact the last time the Ukrainians were subject to Russian rule, 3,900,000 of them were starved to death in Russian collectivisation policies, which are now widely recognised as a genocide, the Holodomor.

Putin doesn't lash out as some sort of preventative measure against NATO expansion, Ukraine can't even currently join NATO, because they have an ongoing conflict on the ground which directly prevents them from doing so. Putin lashes out because he harks back for a Russian dominated sphere of Eastern Europe. If you read his own words he call's the USSR's dissolution & loss of influence over these territories the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in history. His actions in Georgia in 2008 & Crimea in 2014 are more examples of his intention, fuelled by the above, to subject them to Moscow's rule. If he touches Ukraine, the likes of Finland, Sweden will be straight into NATO, directly contradicting his modus operandi, it's a fallacy.

Also Russia might well have done most of the fighting on the ground in WW2, an incredible feat no doubt, but most of the weaponry they were using to do it, weather it be small arms, trucks, aircraft, oil, or any other logistics, were provided directly from the USA through the Lend Lease Act, totalling $11.3b in 1941. The Russians were on the brink before this, an act that is often forgotten in modern history. No weapons/logistics = they can't fight & capitulate. See below for arms & equipment sent before the US even directly joined the war:

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Like you btw, I don't believe the US to be some sort of holier than thou nation that should dictate world affairs. As you fairly state their handling of the Middle East after 9/11 is a prime example. But, this is about protecting a sovereign nation from blatant modern Russian imperialism. Putin will never be satisfied as his previous actions dictate. Munich '38 is the history lesson that shows, you can't continually give into despots, as they will inevitably keep demanding more.

Munich 1938 is a wonderful catch-all analogy that gets trotted out every time someone in the US/NATO military industrial complex wants to go fight someone.

I remember it very well in 1990. Can't let Saddam own 15% of the world's oil! This is Hitler and the Sudetenland all over again!

Then even in 2003. Well Saddam could give all those WMDs to Al-Quaeda (then his bitter enemy btw). This is 1938 in fact! Can't be all appeasing and such.

In 1938 Germany was a power on rough strategic parity to France and the UK. Though, interestingly, far weaker in terms of the balance of power than is generally remembered. May 1940 flipped the tables over to a great degree but I digress.

Germany in 1938 might have had a 10% chance of dominating continental Europe. Which it actually hit on.

Russia in 2022 has a 0.00000% chance of dominating continental Europe. Nuclear-armed France (for one) is just going to Vichy itself up when the Russian tanks come rolling through Strasbourg?

I dislike the misuse of history in service of letting these vile neocon fucking murderous criminals get the war they wake up erect thinking about. Or however Victoria Nuland wakes up as the case might be.

Also lend-lease. Helped, yes, as to the logistical elements the Red Army was weak on. The jeeps and trucks in particular. Russians over there today when you talk to them (I've talked to a lot) will always bring up lend-lease in such terms of gratitude.

But this subject gets badly misused by the west to minimize the contribution of at least 20 million dead Soviets in winning that war. I think it's almost malicious in it's application.

At the very least it is important to point out that the actual fighting equipment (planes, tanks in particular) sent were of lower quality than what the Soviets had and almost none were used beyond very minor theatres of fighting.

 

[SWP's back]

Ask the majority of people in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland etc where these weapons are now stationed, if they prefer life today or when they were either directly incorporated into the USSR, or a satellite of it? In fact the last time the Ukrainians were subject to Russian rule, 3,900,000 of them were starved to death in Russian collectivisation policies, which are now widely recognised as a genocide, the Holodomor.

Putin doesn't lash out as some sort of preventative measure against NATO expansion, Ukraine can't even currently join NATO, because they have an ongoing conflict on the ground which directly prevents them from doing so. Putin lashes out because he harks back for a Russian dominated sphere of Eastern Europe. If you read his own words he call's the USSR's dissolution & loss of influence over these territories the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in history. His actions in Georgia in 2008 & Crimea in 2014 are more examples of his intention, fuelled by the above, to subject them to Moscow's rule. If he touches Ukraine, the likes of Finland, Sweden will be straight into NATO, directly contradicting his modus operandi, it's a fallacy.

Also Russia might well have done most of the fighting on the ground in WW2, an incredible feat no doubt, but most of the weaponry they were using to do it, weather it be small arms, trucks, aircraft, oil, or any other logistics, were provided directly from the USA through the Lend Lease Act, totalling $11.3b in 1941. The Russians were on the brink before this, an act that is often forgotten in modern history. No weapons/logistics = they can't fight & capitulate. See below for arms & equipment sent before the US even directly joined the war:

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Like you btw, I don't believe the US to be some sort of holier than thou nation that should dictate world affairs. As you fairly state their handling of the Middle East after 9/11 is a prime example. But, this is about protecting a sovereign nation from blatant modern Russian imperialism. Putin will never be satisfied as his previous actions dictate. Munich '38 is the history lesson that shows, you can't continually give into despots, as they will inevitably keep demanding more.

Agree with all of this other than the reference to 1938 and Munich. Chamberlain knew Hitler would keep demanding more and more and that war was inevitable but Britain wasn’t as yet on a war footing and Munich gave us 12 more months to build up the RAF and train pilots.

 

[Citizen Green]

Munich 1938 is a wonderful catch-all analogy that gets trotted out every time someone in the US/NATO military industrial complex wants to go fight someone.

I remember it very well in 1990. Can't let Saddam own 15% of the world's oil! This is Hitler and the Sudetenland all over again!

Then even in 2003. Well Saddam could give all those WMDs to Al-Quaeda (then his bitter enemy btw). This is 1938 in fact! Can't be all appeasing and such.

In 1938 Germany was a power on rough strategic parity to France and the UK. Though, interestingly, far weaker in terms of the balance of power than is generally remembered. May 1940 flipped the tables over to a great degree but I digress.

Germany in 1938 might have had a 10% chance of dominating continental Europe. Which it actually hit on.

Russia in 2022 has a 0.00000% chance of dominating continental Europe. Nuclear-armed France (for one) is just going to Vichy itself up when the Russian tanks come rolling through Strasbourg?

I dislike the misuse of history in service of letting these vile neocon fucking murderous criminals get the war they wake up erect thinking about. Or however Victoria Nuland wakes up as the case might be.

Also lend-lease. Helped, yes, as to the logistical elements the Red Army was weak on. The jeeps and trucks in particular. Russians over there today when you talk to them (I've talked to a lot) will always bring up lend-lease in such terms of gratitude.

But this subject gets badly misused by the west to minimize the contribution of at least 20 million dead Soviets in winning that war. I think it's almost malicious in it's application.

At the very least it is important to point out that the actual fighting equipment (planes, tanks in particular) sent were of lower quality than what the Soviets had and almost none were used beyond very minor theatres of fighting.

I fail to see how Russia seizing Crimea and amassing 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border is the West spoiling for a fight? Contrast relations between the West & Russia before their actions in Ukraine in 2014, even despite their war with Georgia (another former Soviet state btw). Their actions have led to this current tension, unless you subscribe to the theory that Russia should just have carte blanche on all of it's former Soviet territories despite the will of the peoples living in them?

Re Munich '38, I think it's an apt analogy because as I stated in my original post, Putin sees the former territories & satellites of the former USSR as fair game. His own words in writing point to this. If you think he stops after he gets what he wants with Ukraine, I believe you'd be badly mistaken. My opinion is that it does nothing but embolden him, look at his demands of NATO in order to deescalate? Clearly wants a free run at the Baltic States, again formally part of the USSR.

No quarrel with your point on 20 million dead, no nation did more on the ground to defeat Nazism than the Red Army (this despite their leadership jumping into bed with Hitler in 1939 to calve up Eastern Europe between themselves, but that's another story) an incredible feat, as I stated. Still my point stands that it was made all the more possible with Western arms & logistics in December '41, when the Wehrmacht was at the gates of Moscow, with the Red Army in disarray. This along with Russia's greatest allies of course, the winter & the sacrifices of it's people.

 

[Citizen Green]

Agree with all of this other than the reference to 1938 and Munich. Chamberlain knew Hitler would keep demanding more and more and that war was inevitable but Britain wasn’t as yet on a war footing and Munich gave us 12 more months to build up the RAF and train pilots.

Depends on your view of Chamberlain, some believe he was buying time, I subscribe to the theory that he was a very naive man bent on peace at any price. The fact he was open to negotiating with Hitler after German forces had occupied Poland in a bid for it before the arrival of Churchill points to my view.

He also had to be forced into declaring war & honouring his guarantee to Poland by his own cabinet, after German troops were already advancing well into Poland. (Sep 3rd)

 

[inbetween]

I agree, if it does we (Europe) are screwed

As far as I'm concerned UK should be staying out of this rather than leading the warmongering from NATO perspective

There is a difference between warmongering and standing up for an ally vs an aggressor. This has nothing to do with the actions of NATO nor the west.

All of this is posturing and appearance because the reality is Russia is now very weak on the global stage. Its economy has lost almost a quarter of its size since it went into Crimea.

This is a desperate attempt by Putin to appear strong at a time when the country is weak and on its arse. In a nationalistic country, nothing softens the blow of poverty and struggle more than a war cry.

 

[mat]

It will all be over tomorrow.

Truss is going to Moscow to get shit done...

 

[manclad]

Ask the majority of people in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland etc where these weapons are now stationed, if they prefer life today or when they were either directly incorporated into the USSR, or a satellite of it? In fact the last time the Ukrainians were subject to Russian rule, 3,900,000 of them were starved to death in Russian collectivisation policies, which are now widely recognised as a genocide, the Holodomor.

Putin doesn't lash out as some sort of preventative measure against NATO expansion, Ukraine can't even currently join NATO, because they have an ongoing conflict on the ground which directly prevents them from doing so. Putin lashes out because he harks back for a Russian dominated sphere of Eastern Europe. If you read his own words he call's the USSR's dissolution & loss of influence over these territories the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in history. His actions in Georgia in 2008 & Crimea in 2014 are more examples of his intention, fuelled by the above, to subject them to Moscow's rule. If he touches Ukraine, the likes of Finland, Sweden will be straight into NATO, directly contradicting his modus operandi, it's a fallacy.

Also Russia might well have done most of the fighting on the ground in WW2, an incredible feat no doubt, but most of the weaponry they were using to do it, weather it be small arms, trucks, aircraft, oil, or any other logistics, were provided directly from the USA through the Lend Lease Act, totalling $11.3b in 1941. The Russians were on the brink before this, an act that is often forgotten in modern history. No weapons/logistics = they can't fight & capitulate. See below for arms & equipment sent before the US even directly joined the war:

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Like you btw, I don't believe the US to be some sort of holier than thou nation that should dictate world affairs. As you fairly state their handling of the Middle East after 9/11 is a prime example. But, this is about protecting a sovereign nation from blatant modern Russian imperialism. Putin will never be satisfied as his previous actions dictate. Munich '38 is the history lesson that shows, you can't continually give into despots, as they will inevitably keep demanding more.

Great , fantastic post.
It's about the most level headed, truthful interpretation of past, current and future events/scenarios that has been posted on the whole thread.
Well done that man.
DOUBLE, DOUBLE LIKE!!!!

 

[ultimateharold]

Great , fantastic post.
It's about the most level headed, truthful interpretation of past, current and future events/scenarios that has been posted on the whole thread.
Well done that man.
DOUBLE, DOUBLE LIKE!!!!

Reporting from the ground in Poland, there is currently, no mither.

 

[idahoblues]

Ask the majority of people in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland etc where these weapons are now stationed, if they prefer life today or when they were either directly incorporated into the USSR, or a satellite of it? In fact the last time the Ukrainians were subject to Russian rule, 3,900,000 of them were starved to death in Russian collectivisation policies, which are now widely recognised as a genocide, the Holodomor.

Putin doesn't lash out as some sort of preventative measure against NATO expansion, Ukraine can't even currently join NATO, because they have an ongoing conflict on the ground which directly prevents them from doing so. Putin lashes out because he harks back for a Russian dominated sphere of Eastern Europe. If you read his own words he call's the USSR's dissolution & loss of influence over these territories the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in history. His actions in Georgia in 2008 & Crimea in 2014 are more examples of his intention, fuelled by the above, to subject them to Moscow's rule. If he touches Ukraine, the likes of Finland, Sweden will be straight into NATO, directly contradicting his modus operandi, it's a fallacy.

Also Russia might well have done most of the fighting on the ground in WW2, an incredible feat no doubt, but most of the weaponry they were using to do it, weather it be small arms, trucks, aircraft, oil, or any other logistics, were provided directly from the USA through the Lend Lease Act, totalling $11.3b in 1941. The Russians were on the brink before this, an act that is often forgotten in modern history. No weapons/logistics = they can't fight & capitulate. See below for arms & equipment sent before the US even directly joined the war:

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Like you btw, I don't believe the US to be some sort of holier than thou nation that should dictate world affairs. As you fairly state their handling of the Middle East after 9/11 is a prime example. But, this is about protecting a sovereign nation from blatant modern Russian imperialism. Putin will never be satisfied as his previous actions dictate. Munich '38 is the history lesson that shows, you can't continually give into despots, as they will inevitably keep demanding more.

How dare you talk sense like this, based on facts.

 

[BrianW]

Russia has been invaded from the West twice in the 20th Century. Their 'buffer states' for want of a better word, have been removed. It's not surprising they are a bit paranoid - especially as they are very nationalistic.

These things are not just about reality - they are also about perception. What seems 'real' to us, may not seem real to the man on the Moscow trolleybus. Remember, his media is lying to him just like our media lies to us.

It is a very dangerous situation, and it does not help that we have maladroit fools and nonentities in charge. Matters need defusing, pronto, before we are all blown to fuck. If war breaks out it will be no picnic. If we are lucky, it will drag on for years with millions dead. If unlucky, there will just be one big explosion that will make Hiroshima look like a penny banger.