Russia vs Ukraine

[lovemachine]

Russia is going to war with the western lgbt + and good on them they don’t need that rubbish in their society they absolutely value the family life tradition so Fuk Ukraine and the west keep sending ur children to the meat grinder….URRAH!

I just wish they could keep Ukraine out of it they are also conservative. Happy for Russia to extinguish the Globohomo but not my beloved Ukraine.

 

[alchemist]

I just wish they could keep Ukraine out of it they are also conservative. Happy for Russia to extinguish the Globohomo but not my beloved Ukraine.

it is a tragedy when fraternal peoples go to war with each other and I truly believe the overwhelming majority of Russians and Ukrainians find war against each other unfathomable... but there are powerful interests at play that want this conflict and on both sides

 

[Tassie Devil]

The Russians were deliberately opaque about their objectives at the start of their 'special military operation' --> demilitarise Ukraine, deNazify Ukraine, ensure Ukrainian neutrality, recognise and effect the independence of the Donbass republics... nothing specific or what those goals entailed... everything else - conquer Kiev in 3 days, occupy all of Ukraine, reincorporate Ukraine into the Russian state etc. - were simply Russian objectives assumed by Western analysts or were part of the information war and then, when that did not occur, the Russians were cynically portrayed as evil f*%# ups bogged down in Ukraine

as for Russia's revised objectives, those are actually pretty clear in comparison... with Russia setting up referendums and annexing 4 Ukrainian oblasts, that is now Moscow's bottom line... and that is a remarkable escalation by the Russians because the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation-states is a cornerstone of international relations and with the US and now Russia playing this game, there is a very real danger that portions of the international community can devolve into squabbling city-state sized statelets with ever changing borders (think the Balkans gone global)... but the Russians have done it and included those territories in their constitution as sovereign Russian territory... in effect, any Russian leader now that abandons Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson for good (ie. not a tactical withdrawal as with Kherson city) is a traitor

as for what sort of Russia and world emerges on the other side of this war, people really should pay attention to something more than twitter because a very real struggle is happening for the world to watch between a unipolar world with US/Western hegemony vs an emerging bipolar/multipolar world where the likes of Russia and China are deliberately looking to limit US power and influence... and it is playing out in a number of places and not just Ukraine --> Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Germany, Scandinavia, Africa etc.

So we agree that Russia haven't and won't meet any objectives they've set out and in fact are worse off from it based on those objectives.

 

[Tassie Devil]

the time is coming when there won't be any negotiations to be had anymore and one country will issue terms the other will have to accept... do you seriously think it will be the Russians that surrender?

Nope. Which is why this war will continue for some time.

The point I'm making is that Ukraine won't stop now until all of Ukraine, including Crimea, is completely returned to Ukraine.

Russia will only start to negotiate when they're I'm a desperate shape which won't be for a while imo

 

[Tassie Devil]

Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"

if we work backwards, at the international level everything is political between nations

and Russia is clearly trying to avoid civilian deaths at the least... for example,

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597890453923598338

a couple months ago, Ursula Von Der Leyen gave a speech where she stated that an estimated 100,000 Ukrainian officers (let's assume she meant soldiers in general) had been killed and 20,000 Ukrainian civilians had died... that is a 5:1 casualty ratio in this war between combatants and civilians where historically it would be closer to 1:1 and when the US are involved (eg. Vietnam, Iraq) it is 1:3+

as for the lawfulness of the violence, if memory serves war as a whole was outlawed and hence, why everything is termed as humanitarian interventions and special military operations and Russia did - however convincingly or not - justify their special military operation per the UN Charter

"Clearly trying to avoid civilian deaths" hard to take anything you say seriously after that mate. Sorry.

Even if we put to the side that they've seemingly been happy to hit civilian targets, staying that they're clearly trying to avoid it is some statement ..

 

[Tassie Devil]

a loss of morale as a result of Russian targeting of Ukraine's electricity infrastructure is not the dominant or at least military reason for the attacks... the majority of military equipment in this part of the world is transported by train and the rail network in Ukraine is predominantly electric... hence, the Russians target the electrical transformers which stops the flow of electricity meaning that it is harder for the Ukrainian forces to move manpower and equipment... and the West cannot help the situation by sending diesel trains since Russian and Ukrainian railway tracks use a different gauge size

and more generally speaking, if the Russians were intent on targeting civilians, they would have targeted the electrical infrastructure from the beginning like the US would (all that shock and awe sh*t) instead of waiting until the 8th month of the war

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/puti...rdment-of-ukraines-roads-and-railways-1613061

and we have seen Ukraine target enemy territory

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-electricity-idUSKCN0TB04920151122

and per the US Department of Defence's own definitions -

“Military objectives, insofar as objects are concerned, include ‘any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.'”

“Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.”

“It is not necessary that the object provide immediate tactical or operational gains or that the object make an effective contribution to a specific military operation. Rather, the object’s effective contribution to the war-fighting or war-sustaining capability of an opposing force is sufficient. Although terms such as “war-fighting,” “war-supporting,” and “war-sustaining” are not explicitly reflected in the treaty definitions of military objective, the United States has interpreted the military objective definition to include these concepts.”

"I will readily admit that, aside from directly damaging the military electrical power infrastructure, NATO wanted the civilian population to experience discomfort, so that the population would pressure Milosevic and the Serbian leadership to accede to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, but the intended effects on the civilian population were secondary to the military advantage gained by attacking the electrical power infrastructure."

So they're "clearly trying to avoid civilian deaths" ... up until the 8th month anyway ... Rightio

 

[alchemist]

So we agree that Russia haven't and won't meet any objectives they've set out and in fact are worse off from it based on those objectives.

yes and no... there will always be Nazis in Western Ukraine but if the Ukrainians are now demanding 300 main battle tanks, 500 howitzers and 600 IFVs, it can only mean that either they are planning another serious counter offensive (likely either at Kremenaya or towards Melitipol) or the majority of tanks and other armoured vehicles they had at the start of the war have been destroyed and the 350-400 tanks sent since from Eastern Europe are likely mainly destroyed, too... add the fact that per Von Der Leyen's estimate that Ukraine has lost more than 100,000 troops as of November indicates that Ukraine is losing 10,000+ troops a month in this war of attrition... with such an attrition rate, how much longer will Ukraine have an army? how much longer will Ukraine have men of military age? does seem like Ukraine has been and will continue to be demilitarised by the Russians

as for the revised goals, the land bridge between Russia and Crimea seems pretty solid for now and the Russians have spent the last couple months digging in and building large defensive lines across the contact line in Zaporizhzhia... Luhansk is mainly liberated but the Ukrainian push in towards Svatovo/Kremenaya is dangerous for them... Donetsk has extensive defensive lines (at least 3) and the Russians are working on the second line as we speak... as for Kherson, the Russians will stay on the east side of the Dnieper for the foreseeable future but the Ukrainians gained little in retaking Kherson city as they were unable to reinstitute electricty and water supply and so, a lot of civilians that stayed evacuated westwards

 

[alchemist]

Nope. Which is why this war will continue for some time.

The point I'm making is that Ukraine won't stop now until all of Ukraine, including Crimea, is completely returned to Ukraine.

Russia will only start to negotiate when they're I'm a desperate shape which won't be for a while imo

and when Ukraine run out of men, weapons and money?

 

[Doogie]

Finland is a nation of 5.6 million which offers nothing other than its positioning and long border with Russia... now, the only real reason the US would want Finland in NATO is to provide an additional launching pad for its intermediate nuclear weapons but according to Finnish law, nuclear weapons are outlawed and the Finnish president recently stated that “Finland has no intention of allowing nuclear weapons to be located on its territory. There are no indicators that any NATO-nation is offering nuclear arms to Finland”... in the event that that changes and US puts nuclear weapons in Finland so close to St Petersburg, we will see at the very least Russia mirror those weapons and place its own there aimed at Helsinki etc. or at worst, we will have another special military operation to demilitarise Finland... as to a conventional war involving Finland and Russia, the Russians are creating a new military district in St Petersburg and increasing the size of their army... and in truth, does NATO go all in to defend Finland? Art 5 allows for degrees of help should a fellow NATO nation be attacked... economically, I don't think Finland was as dependent on Russian energy as other European states but the lack of use of Russia's airspace and trade and tourism with Russia will bite

there is historically enmity between Russia and Sweden and a lot of cooperation between Sweden and NATO and so, I don't think that changes much... watching the interplay between Sweden and Turkey though has been fun as Turkey insists that certain preconditions need to be met before Turkey agrees to allowing Sweden into NATO including the extradition of Kurds in Sweden

and you also have the likes of Paludan burning a Quran in front of the Turkish embassy in Stockholm

and an effigy of Erdogan being hanged in Stockholm and Swedes wiping their feet on an image of Erdogan

Poland is an interesting case... firstly, they are devout Russophobes and so, their minds haven't been changed by the Ukraine War but rather have been confirmed... in the short term, they will be weaker because all their Soviet era weapons have been sent to Ukraine and it will take time to replenish their stocks from the US... they are now even talking about sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine... longer term they are positioning themselves as America's most important continental ally but it will be interesting to watch how Poland's relationship with Germany goes because at some point, Berlin is going to lose its patience with Warsaw as to the incessant complaining regarding the level of Germany's assistance to Ukraine, the Nordstream attacks and potential that Poland was involved and Poland's demand for $1.3 trillion in reparations from Germany for WWII

as for Ukraine, regardless of the result of the war, they are f*%#ed... they will have 200,000+ deaths, 500,000+ wounded, 15 million people have fled the country and how many do you see coming back to a bombed out nation, the economy has been devastated, the infrastructure destroyed with recent estimates that it will take $700 billion to rebuild, Ukraine will be indebted to the West for generations repaying $150+ billion (eg. it took the UK and USSR/Russia over 60 years to repay the US for their WWII loans), they will lose territory to Russia or at best be in a Korea style frozen conflict and that territory has the best soil and industry and positioning on the Black Sea and Sea of Azov etc... and you will have continual hatreds and violence and terrorism etc... pretty much, the Palestinians of Europe parked next to a nuclear superpower

Finland in NATO gives the west easy access to Severomorsk which is where the majority of the Northern fleet is. It also provides access to the E105 highway which is about the only way to land resource the Northern fleet bases. With the way the arctic is becoming a geopolitical playground - its a western advantage to be able to threaten these sites. So its more than just a long border, its a long border that if necessary can cut off resupply to these sites, almost impossible to guard against and if frozen in, a fair chance of completely isolating that fleet.

 

[alchemist]

"Clearly trying to avoid civilian deaths" hard to take anything you say seriously after that mate. Sorry.

Even if we put to the side that they've seemingly been happy to hit civilian targets, staying that they're clearly trying to avoid it is some statement ..

imagine that this war escalates and expands to other territories... for example, Poland recently recruited 200,000 men of military age for training and some of the more conspiracy inclined commentators believe that Poland will enter into Western Ukraine to reclaim historically Polish lands lost to the USSR during the 20th century... hypothetically, if that happens and there is a direct conflict between Russia and Poland (and not simply Polish mercenaries as it is now), Russia will be considerably more brutal with the Poles than with the Ukrainians

 

[alchemist]

Finland in NATO gives the west easy access to Severomorsk which is where the majority of the Northern fleet is. It also provides access to the E105 highway which is about the only way to land resource the Northern fleet bases. With the way the arctic is becoming a geopolitical playground - its a western advantage to be able to threaten these sites. So its more than just a long border, its a long border that if necessary can cut off resupply to these sites, almost impossible to guard against and if frozen in, a fair chance of completely isolating that fleet.

actually, that is a good point... I don't believe the addition of Sweden and Finland adds something for NATO in the Baltic Sea but the ship building and Poliyarny etc. for Russia is vital... does also then raise the issue of Arctic warfare and I still think the Russians have the advantage... a bit like the gap between the eastern border of Ukraine and the Caspian Sea and cutting Russia off from its territories in the Caucasus

 

[Doogie]

in the Donbass it is an artillery war and the Russians would have at least a 6:1 advantage in guns and would have a similar advantage in the amount of artillery shells fired at the Ukrainians daily... the US has supposedly gone to South Korea to buy 100,000 artillery shells, they have transferred stored shells in Israel to Ukraine, they have explored re-opening a factory in Romania to build Soviet calibre shells etc.

Ukraine would have started the war with about 1,000 tanks and plenty more infantry fighting vehicles and armoured personnel carriers... since then, most of Eastern Europe's Soviet/Russian tanks and other equipment has been sent to Ukraine and not just from the usual suspects like Poland but Slovenia, for example, sent its modernised Yugoslav era T-55s which date back to 1946 to Ukraine, tanks gifted to Macedonia by Russia were sent to Ukraine, Slovakia sent its entire Mig fighter squadron etc.

and then a month ago, Ukrainian general Zaluzhny gave an interview to 'The Economist' stating that Ukraine can win but needs 300 more main battle tanks, 500 howitzers and 600+ IFVs and APCs or he may have to give a Mannerheim style surrender speech to his soldiers... hence, the current argument within NATO about Germany giving Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine

Nah your wrong. According to a Kennel expert - the Russians ran out of weapons months ago.

 

[alchemist]

So they're "clearly trying to avoid civilian deaths" ... up until the 8th month anyway ... Rightio

the Russians are clearly escalating... they started with an expeditionary force only and vowed not to target civilian infrastructure and made no territorial claims beyond the Donbass... now they have partially mobilised, targeted railways and bridges and the power grid, and claim 4 oblasts and Crimea as Russian territory

 

[Doogie]

actually, that is a good point... I don't believe the addition of Sweden and Finland adds something for NATO in the Baltic Sea but the ship building and Poliyarny etc. for Russia is vital... does also then raise the issue of Arctic warfare and I still think the Russians have the advantage... a bit like the gap between the eastern border of Ukraine and the Caspian Sea and cutting Russia off from its territories in the Caucasus

Sweden isolates Kaliningrad. Not a big deal n the scheme of things but any major action in that area has to take it out. I would imagine that if it all went south - Russia cannot defend it but could definitely go out with a bang. And if you own the Baltic - you can put munitions into Moscow from the sea with a land buffer of the Baltic states.

But lets hope it doesn't go that far.

 

[alchemist]

"Clearly trying to avoid civilian deaths" hard to take anything you say seriously after that mate. Sorry.

Even if we put to the side that they've seemingly been happy to hit civilian targets, staying that they're clearly trying to avoid it is some statement ..

after holding a referendum in Kherson and annexing it in September-October, the new Russian general in charge decided that keeping Kherson city was too much effort and too much risk for the reward now and withdrew in November(?)... but rather than allowing the citizens of Kherson city be subject to reprisals once the Ukrainians took over once again (like happened in Kharkov), about 115,000 civilians were evacuated

 

[alchemist]

Nah your wrong. According to a Kennel expert - the Russians ran out of weapons months ago.

the Russians have fired more cruise missiles at Ukraine in 11 months than the US has in all their wars since the end of the Cold War 30+ years ago... the Russians have been stockpiling AND have sorted out a process to continue acquiring the necessary parts for their missiles with missiles made in mid-2022 fired on Ukraine

 

[Doogie]

the Russians have fired more cruise missiles at Ukraine in 11 months than the US has in all their wars since the end of the Cold War 30+ years ago... the Russians have been stockpiling AND have sorted out a process to continue acquiring the necessary parts for their missiles with missiles made in mid-2022 fired on Ukraine

Sorry - don't have a sarcasm font. Made the same point months ago and copped the pitchfork brigade.

 

[alchemist]

Sweden isolates Kaliningrad. Not a big deal n the scheme of things but any major action in that area has to take it out. I would imagine that if it all went south - Russia cannot defend it but could definitely go out with a bang. And if you own the Baltic - you can put munitions into Moscow from the sea with a land buffer of the Baltic states.

But lets hope it doesn't go that far.

the Baltic is a very shallow sea and you would have to think submarine warfare would be limited... as for surface ships, the Moskva sinking proves they are moving into obsolescence... Kaliningrad would be stacked with weapons and a Western siege of a Russian city on the Baltic would invoke harsh memories for the Russians who have stated that an existential threat to Russia could lead to a nuclear retaliation

 

[alchemist]

Sorry - don't have a sarcasm font. Made the same point months ago and copped the pitchfork brigade.

No, I got it but I figured people on The Kennel need to stop taking Ukrainian and Western assertions as to Russian limitations at face value

 

[Doogie]

the Baltic is a very shallow sea and you would have to think submarine warfare would be limited... as for surface ships, the Moskva sinking proves they are moving into obsolescence... Kaliningrad would be stacked with weapons and a Western siege of a Russian city on the Baltic would invoke harsh memories for the Russians who have stated that an existential threat to Russia could lead to a nuclear retaliation

I understand NATO are moving more anti air equipment into Gotland with the view of enhancing air capability. I agree, you're not doing much in the Baltic except air and possible troop deployments by sea but regardless - with how stacked Kaliningrad is - if it all went south you'd have to take it out early.