Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
If it wasn't for the nuclear threat we would show you just how pathetic the Russian forces are inside 3 weeks.
No, far better to develop your opinion from the propaganda of two authoritarian regimes instead of 30+ democracies.
The Serbs committed a genocide and that's the only time NATO has acted against a European country since its creation. How many countries has Russia invaded in Europe since WWII? Even ignoring the fact that it annexed half of Europe during WWII and drew up plans to divide it with the Nazis before starting WWII with them! East German uprising, 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Moldova 1990, Georgia twice 1991&2008, Ukraine twice 2014 and 0222.
List of wars involving Russia - Wikipedia
Many Russians fled to Serbia in the early 1920s, it's the same damn people causing the problem in both cases. You're shit out of luck and arguments for defending Russia in Europe I'm afraid.
Er... Yes. 'Cause the Russians are reacting to American provocation.
The Oryx site has exhaustive information on all the downed jets and helis. The total losses are 140+ based on recorded information, but this includes jets, helicopters and UAVs.
Yeah, there are Nazis everywhere, there are probably even worse people around, but some of the ones in power in Ukraine are Nazis, like the Azovs.
In the 21st century, the US would be pretty high up on the list.
Has America bombed them? Provocation how exactly?
Nope, interfax has more, and you won't see the ones that go down behind Russian lines, which most ejecting pilots will try do.
The government are not Nazis. Russia was constantly creating havoc in the Donbass, that's what caused the government to react. Nazis wouldn't want into the EU given their immigration policies.
Nope. You can't blame the US for militia groups bombing each other and civilians, or for Al Quaeda, and even if you did the numbers wouldn't get anywhere near what Communists have done. Not even slightly close. You need to research what you're talking about more.
I am not defending any one its not our war we have no stake in it, its your problem where you think are morally qualified preach to others and expecting us to believe every crap that west spouts.
Was ukraine a democracy when the mob backed by americans conducted a coup on yanukovych ? so why did america and nato run away from afghanistan leaving it to bunch of terrorists. This defending democracy bull sh*** has gone past its expiry date, please come up with some thing new.
Putin invades every country that isn't NATO in Europe, that's why NATO keeps expanding.
diary-of-a-nerdy-kid.medium.com
Foreigner settlers sparking a revolution against their new home’s government.
Before you spit out your coffee, give it second, and keep reading.
In the not so distant past, there was a country with a significant migration problem. People with one linguistic, cultural and religious tradition settled a frontier region belonging to a country with separate linguistic, cultural and religious traditions. Naturally, there was a great deal of tension between the settlers and the government.
As antagonisms grew, and the settlers demanded more and more concessions from the government, rebellion finally broke out.
As the rebellion intensified, the settlers’ original country flooded the territory with arms and volunteers, and the settlers won their independence. After a short go of independence, they held a referendum (sometimes called a plebiscite), and decided to join their home country. Leaving the country who originally had claims and rights to the territory upset, but unable to do anything about it.
If you said that this rings of some of the issues facing Ukraine, you’d be right. If you also said that this doesn’t sound quite like Ukraine, you would also be right. This isn’t Ukraine in the 21st Century. This is Texas in the 19th Century.
Many Westerners struggle to put Putin’s actions into context, so they conclude that “he must be crazy.” Sorry, but unfortunately, he isn’t.
The problem with understanding Putin isn’t with Putin. It is with our own lens. Putin’s actions do not make sense from the perspective of a 21st Century Western European or North American. They do make sense from the perspective of a 17th to 19th Century Russian Tsar or a 19th Century American President (Andrew Jackson).
It is a marvel of modern history that a good portion of the world has come to view Machiavellian territorial schemes as a bad thing. Stability is the new normal. It isn’t the historical norm.
Life in the “state of nature” e.g. most of human history.
More so than colliding worldviews (more on this in a second), we are witnessing the collision of two histories. On one hand, we have the western desire for a stable international order and the history that may stem from that. On the other, we have the weight of human history, where consequently life was “nasty, brutish and short”, still making a push for the might makes right world order.
In the language of international affairs academics, the world is generally divided into liberalists and realists. There are those that deal with the world as they want it to be (liberalists) and those who deal with the world as it is (realists). Putin is the third kind. He’s the kind that we hoped died in a bunker in Berlin.
At any rate, NATO and the 70 years of European peace that it has fostered is a historical anomaly. It is especially astounding considering that so many NATO members have historical antagonisms that go back centuries and even millennia (Greeks-Turks, Greeks-Macedonians, Germans-French, Germans-English, English-French, Danes verses, well, everyone — just to name a few).
NATO has actually interrupted the cycle of violence that plagued one of the world’s most violent regions for a few thousand years. But it comes at a cost to individual nations. Those nations can no longer enlarge their borders at the expense of another. In other words, for NATO countries, might is not longer right.
Setting aside the fact that NATO expanded its membership to include former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact members within 10 years of the collapse of the USSR, perhaps this is why Putin fears/hates NATO. It is antithetical to everything he believes. NATO blocked Putin’s ability to absorb the Baltic states and maybe even bring Poland to heel. It limited his ability to bully countries and people who were, historically, subject to whatever whims a tsar may have at the moment.
My favorite portrait of the tsar.
Back to Putin.
Putin is not a madman. He is not ill. He is not mentally unstable. He is a tsarist who is trying to recreate Imperial Russia. He does not want “chaos” for the sake of “chaos”.
If Putin were crazy, then a) he probably would not be the president of Russia and b) we would be unable to trace the logic of his decisions and therefore we would not be able to counter him.
So why does any of this matter?
Well, a popular military axiom is to “know your enemy”. Brushing of the enemy as “crazy” doesn’t qualify as knowing them. In normal discussions, it may be excusable because most people aren’t actively making policy decisions. In the policy making realms, brushing off the enemy as crazy is irresponsible because policy makers begin making decisions based on bad information and false assumptions.
Saying Putin is rationale is not the same as saying that we agree with his actions.
By acknowledging that Putin has reasons for what he is doing, policy makers can do things to influence or interrupt his decision making. Crazy people don’t have decision making processes with understandable logic. And Putin isn’t crazy.
Because Afghanistan has so many different tribes it's literally impossible to unfuck without killing every single person in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's why we pulled out. The government had more than a fighting chance if it had tried. It was also a case of shifting goalposts. The original goal was Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, that was accomplished in the first 2 weeks with 12 men. The second was Bin Laden, that was accomplished in 2011 in Pakistan. Making Afghanistan a country instead of a shithole was then something that suddenly became a goal, we failed, but we tried. Putin is trying to make a democracy a puppet regime like Belarus.
Putin is Perfectly Rational
Before you spit out your coffee, give it second, and keep reading.
Putin is Perfectly Rational
Foreigner settlers sparking a revolution against their new home’s government.
Before you spit out your coffee, give it second, and keep reading.
In the not so distant past, there was a country with a significant migration problem. People with one linguistic, cultural and religious tradition settled a frontier region belonging to a country with separate linguistic, cultural and religious traditions. Naturally, there was a great deal of tension between the settlers and the government.
As antagonisms grew, and the settlers demanded more and more concessions from the government, rebellion finally broke out.
As the rebellion intensified, the settlers’ original country flooded the territory with arms and volunteers, and the settlers won their independence. After a short go of independence, they held a referendum (sometimes called a plebiscite), and decided to join their home country. Leaving the country who originally had claims and rights to the territory upset, but unable to do anything about it.
If you said that this rings of some of the issues facing Ukraine, you’d be right. If you also said that this doesn’t sound quite like Ukraine, you would also be right. This isn’t Ukraine in the 21st Century. This is Texas in the 19th Century.
Many Westerners struggle to put Putin’s actions into context, so they conclude that “he must be crazy.” Sorry, but unfortunately, he isn’t.
The problem with understanding Putin isn’t with Putin. It is with our own lens. Putin’s actions do not make sense from the perspective of a 21st Century Western European or North American. They do make sense from the perspective of a 17th to 19th Century Russian Tsar or a 19th Century American President (Andrew Jackson).
It is a marvel of modern history that a good portion of the world has come to view Machiavellian territorial schemes as a bad thing. Stability is the new normal. It isn’t the historical norm.
Life in the “state of nature” e.g. most of human history.
More so than colliding worldviews (more on this in a second), we are witnessing the collision of two histories. On one hand, we have the western desire for a stable international order and the history that may stem from that. On the other, we have the weight of human history, where consequently life was “nasty, brutish and short”, still making a push for the might makes right world order.
In the language of international affairs academics, the world is generally divided into liberalists and realists. There are those that deal with the world as they want it to be (liberalists) and those who deal with the world as it is (realists). Putin is the third kind. He’s the kind that we hoped died in a bunker in Berlin.
At any rate, NATO and the 70 years of European peace that it has fostered is a historical anomaly. It is especially astounding considering that so many NATO members have historical antagonisms that go back centuries and even millennia (Greeks-Turks, Greeks-Macedonians, Germans-French, Germans-English, English-French, Danes verses, well, everyone — just to name a few).
NATO has actually interrupted the cycle of violence that plagued one of the world’s most violent regions for a few thousand years. But it comes at a cost to individual nations. Those nations can no longer enlarge their borders at the expense of another. In other words, for NATO countries, might is not longer right.
Setting aside the fact that NATO expanded its membership to include former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact members within 10 years of the collapse of the USSR, perhaps this is why Putin fears/hates NATO. It is antithetical to everything he believes. NATO blocked Putin’s ability to absorb the Baltic states and maybe even bring Poland to heel. It limited his ability to bully countries and people who were, historically, subject to whatever whims a tsar may have at the moment.
My favorite portrait of the tsar.
Back to Putin.
Putin is not a madman. He is not ill. He is not mentally unstable. He is a tsarist who is trying to recreate Imperial Russia. He does not want “chaos” for the sake of “chaos”.
If Putin were crazy, then a) he probably would not be the president of Russia and b) we would be unable to trace the logic of his decisions and therefore we would not be able to counter him.
So why does any of this matter?
Well, a popular military axiom is to “know your enemy”. Brushing of the enemy as “crazy” doesn’t qualify as knowing them. In normal discussions, it may be excusable because most people aren’t actively making policy decisions. In the policy making realms, brushing off the enemy as crazy is irresponsible because policy makers begin making decisions based on bad information and false assumptions.
Saying Putin is rationale is not the same as saying that we agree with his actions.
By acknowledging that Putin has reasons for what he is doing, policy makers can do things to influence or interrupt his decision making. Crazy people don’t have decision making processes with understandable logic. And Putin isn’t crazy.
No, it likely wasn't, if it had been Russia wouldn't be facing such stiff resistance right now. Most Iraqis were glad when the US came to replace Saddam before Al Quaeda and foreign-backed entities came to destroy the country.
Because Afghanistan has so many different tribes it's literally impossible to unfuck without killing every single person in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's why we pulled out. The government had more than a fighting chance if it had tried. It was also a case of shifting goalposts. The original goal was Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, that was accomplished in the first 2 weeks with 12 men. The second was Bin Laden, that was accomplished in 2011 in Pakistan. Making Afghanistan a country instead of a shithole was then something that suddenly became a goal, we failed, but we tried. Putin is trying to make a democracy a puppet regime like Belarus.
Last edited:
At some point the Russians will have to make up their minds. I wouldn't have said this a month ago, but the Ukrainians could tip the conflict in their favour.
Why would they do that? Because in the current state of affairs the operations have turned into a confrontation of attrition.
However, Russia has not entered into the "economics and planning" of war. In the current state of the forces engaged, it is at best barely at numerical parity and sometimes less so against an adversary entrenched on a network of defence in depth.
It is essentially a matter of artillery and even if it has superiority in this area, it does not have the human pool to compensate for its losses.
In a conflict of attrition, the one with the largest human pool wins. The Russians theoretically have the largest pool but they have not mobilised it. They'll have to make the jump if they want to "win".
The Russian human pool, yes. But on paper. Serious question: how long will it take, even with a larger mobilisation, to get the first trained troops to the front? Six months, a year? More?
Why would they do that? Because in the current state of affairs the operations have turned into a confrontation of attrition.
However, Russia has not entered into the "economics and planning" of war. In the current state of the forces engaged, it is at best barely at numerical parity and sometimes less so against an adversary entrenched on a network of defence in depth.
It is essentially a matter of artillery and even if it has superiority in this area, it does not have the human pool to compensate for its losses.
In a conflict of attrition, the one with the largest human pool wins. The Russians theoretically have the largest pool but they have not mobilised it. They'll have to make the jump if they want to "win".
The Russian human pool, yes. But on paper. Serious question: how long will it take, even with a larger mobilisation, to get the first trained troops to the front? Six months, a year? More?
you thought nazis were hunted down ? Nato once had a nazi as its chief of staff, now digest that.
Those that were war criminals were. There's a distinction to be made. Should we have executed every single person in the German military?
Putin was in the KGB, an even more murderous organisation with its predecessors, and is still murdering today.
Stalin signed an agreement with the Nazis to divide Europe before beginning WWII alongside them, so let's not get preachy. Russia deserves no credit for ending up on the right side of WWII, the Nazis made the choice for them.
Pushing them towards war by making Ukraine choose sides. The US performed a regime change, and then helped a comedian come to power who turned the country into a joke.
Lol. So Oryx has 26 downed jet with pictures, whereas Interfax knows how many jets Russia has crashed in their own air space without any Ukrainian action? You have a beautiful mind.
Yeah, dude. Keep telling that to yourself.
The US itself has killed a lot of people. Funding a foreign militia is also illegal, and if the militia kills, that's also counted as a war crime.
At some point the Russians will have to make up their minds. I wouldn't have said this a month ago, but the Ukrainians could tip the conflict in their favour.
Why would they do that? Because in the current state of affairs the operations have turned into a confrontation of attrition.
However, Russia has not entered into the "economics and planning" of war. In the current state of the forces engaged, it is at best barely at numerical parity and sometimes less so against an adversary entrenched on a network of defence in depth.
It is essentially a matter of artillery and even if it has superiority in this area, it does not have the human pool to compensate for its losses.
In a conflict of attrition, the one with the largest human pool wins. The Russians theoretically have the largest pool but they have not mobilised it. They'll have to make the jump if they want to "win".
The Russian human pool, yes. But on paper. Serious question: how long will it take, even with a larger mobilisation, to get the first trained troops to the front? Six months, a year? More?
The Russian Army reserve is pretty big. In terms of manpower, they can mobilise extremely quickly. They should already have a sizable number trained, prepped and ready for contingencies by now. Attrition replacements would have started long ago.
When it comes to artillery, I'm sure the reserves are trained in its use. I don't see why it will be a problem.
The problem comes when it comes to upgrading the stuff in storage. But the modernisation process of Soviet stocks should have already picked up pace by now, as long as the decision was taken in March. It's also a lot easier compared to before due to the extensive Russianisation of electronics, like the T-72B3M and T-90M with pretty much the same package. I believe Russia has 7000 T-72s in storage and can be quickly adapted for this upgrade. The Russian MIC is also well adapted for scaling up. The same with armoured vehicles.
Change in tactics will also make it easier, ie, if the Russians take up defensive positions and hold until new units become available.
So it's not clear why you think it will take 6 months to a year.
I don't believe that they should already have a sizable number trained, prepped and ready for contingencies by now.
Pro-Russian Bloggers React to Reported Donets Military Disaster
Growing evidence of a military disaster on the Donets pierces a pro-Russian bubble.
The destruction wreaked on a Russian battalion as it tried to cross a river in northeastern Ukraine last week is emerging as among the deadliest engagements of the war, with estimates based on publicly available evidence now suggesting that well over 400 Russian soldiers were killed or wounded.
And as the scale of what happened comes into sharper focus, the disaster appears to be breaking through the Kremlin’s tightly controlled information bubble.
Perhaps most striking, the Russian battlefield failure is resonating with a stable of pro-Russian war bloggers — some of whom are embedded with troops on the front line — who have reliably posted to the social network Telegram with claims of Russian success and Ukrainian cowardice.
“The commentary by these widely read milbloggers may fuel burgeoning doubts in Russia about Russia’s prospects in this war and the competence of Russia’s military leaders,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based research body, wrote over the weekend.
On May 11, the Russian command reportedly sent about 550 troops of the 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade of the 41st Combined Arms Army to cross the Donets River at Bilohorivka, in the eastern Luhansk region, in a bid to encircle Ukrainian forces near Rubizhne.
Satellite images reveal that Ukrainian artillery destroyed several Russian pontoon bridges and laid waste to a tight concentration of Russian troops and equipment around the river.
The Institute for the Study of War, citing analyses based on the publicly available imagery, indicated that there could have been as many as 485 Russian soldiers killed or wounded and more than 80 pieces of equipment destroyed.
As the news of the losses at the river crossing in Bilohorivka started to spread, some Russian bloggers did not appear to hold back in their criticism of what they said was incompetent leadership.
“I’ve been keeping quiet for a long time,” Yuri Podolyaka, a war blogger with 2.1 million followers on Telegram, said in a video posted on Friday, saying that he had avoided criticizing the Russian military until now.
“The last straw that overwhelmed my patience was the events around Bilohorivka, where due to stupidity — I emphasize, because of the stupidity of the Russian command — at least one battalion tactical group was burned, possibly two.”
Mr. Podolyaka ridiculed the Kremlin line that the war is going “according to plan.” He told his viewers in a five-minute video that, in fact, the Russian Army was short of functional unmanned drones, night-vision equipment and other kit “that is catastrophically lacking on the front.”
“Yes, I understand that it’s impossible for there to be no problems in war,” he said. “But when the same problems go on for three months, and nothing seems to be changing, then I personally and in fact millions of citizens of the Russian Federation start to have questions for these leaders of the military operation.”
Another popular blogger, who goes by Starshe Eddy on Telegram, wrote that the fact that commanders left so much of their force exposed amounted to “not idiocy, but direct sabotage.”
And a third, Vladlen Tatarski, posted that Russia’s eastern offensive was moving slowly not just because of a lack of surveillance drones but also “these generals” and their tactics.
“Until we get the last name of the military genius who laid down a B.T.G. by the river and he answers for it publicly, we won’t have had any military reforms,” Mr. Tatarski wrote.
Western military analysts have also pored over the imagery and say the attempted crossing demonstrated a stunning lack of tactical sense.
They have speculated that Russian commanders, desperate to make progress, rushed the operation. Some also suggested that it was a reflection of disorder in the Russian ranks.
If the estimates that hundreds of soldiers were killed or injured prove accurate, it would be one of the deadliest known engagements of the war.
There were more than 500 sailors aboard the Russian Black Sea flagship Moskva when it was struck by a Ukrainian missile in April. The Kremlin at first insisted that all the sailors were rescued, later saying one was killed. But even as the families of missing sailors have publicly demanded answers, the Kremlin has largely kept up an official silence on the fate of the crew, part of a larger campaign to suppress bad news.
Growing evidence of a military disaster on the Donets pierces a pro-Russian bubble.
The destruction wreaked on a Russian battalion as it tried to cross a river in northeastern Ukraine last week is emerging as among the deadliest engagements of the war, with estimates based on publicly available evidence now suggesting that well over 400 Russian soldiers were killed or wounded.
And as the scale of what happened comes into sharper focus, the disaster appears to be breaking through the Kremlin’s tightly controlled information bubble.
Perhaps most striking, the Russian battlefield failure is resonating with a stable of pro-Russian war bloggers — some of whom are embedded with troops on the front line — who have reliably posted to the social network Telegram with claims of Russian success and Ukrainian cowardice.
“The commentary by these widely read milbloggers may fuel burgeoning doubts in Russia about Russia’s prospects in this war and the competence of Russia’s military leaders,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based research body, wrote over the weekend.
On May 11, the Russian command reportedly sent about 550 troops of the 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade of the 41st Combined Arms Army to cross the Donets River at Bilohorivka, in the eastern Luhansk region, in a bid to encircle Ukrainian forces near Rubizhne.
Satellite images reveal that Ukrainian artillery destroyed several Russian pontoon bridges and laid waste to a tight concentration of Russian troops and equipment around the river.
The Institute for the Study of War, citing analyses based on the publicly available imagery, indicated that there could have been as many as 485 Russian soldiers killed or wounded and more than 80 pieces of equipment destroyed.
As the news of the losses at the river crossing in Bilohorivka started to spread, some Russian bloggers did not appear to hold back in their criticism of what they said was incompetent leadership.
“I’ve been keeping quiet for a long time,” Yuri Podolyaka, a war blogger with 2.1 million followers on Telegram, said in a video posted on Friday, saying that he had avoided criticizing the Russian military until now.
“The last straw that overwhelmed my patience was the events around Bilohorivka, where due to stupidity — I emphasize, because of the stupidity of the Russian command — at least one battalion tactical group was burned, possibly two.”
Mr. Podolyaka ridiculed the Kremlin line that the war is going “according to plan.” He told his viewers in a five-minute video that, in fact, the Russian Army was short of functional unmanned drones, night-vision equipment and other kit “that is catastrophically lacking on the front.”
“Yes, I understand that it’s impossible for there to be no problems in war,” he said. “But when the same problems go on for three months, and nothing seems to be changing, then I personally and in fact millions of citizens of the Russian Federation start to have questions for these leaders of the military operation.”
Another popular blogger, who goes by Starshe Eddy on Telegram, wrote that the fact that commanders left so much of their force exposed amounted to “not idiocy, but direct sabotage.”
And a third, Vladlen Tatarski, posted that Russia’s eastern offensive was moving slowly not just because of a lack of surveillance drones but also “these generals” and their tactics.
“Until we get the last name of the military genius who laid down a B.T.G. by the river and he answers for it publicly, we won’t have had any military reforms,” Mr. Tatarski wrote.
Western military analysts have also pored over the imagery and say the attempted crossing demonstrated a stunning lack of tactical sense.
They have speculated that Russian commanders, desperate to make progress, rushed the operation. Some also suggested that it was a reflection of disorder in the Russian ranks.
If the estimates that hundreds of soldiers were killed or injured prove accurate, it would be one of the deadliest known engagements of the war.
There were more than 500 sailors aboard the Russian Black Sea flagship Moskva when it was struck by a Ukrainian missile in April. The Kremlin at first insisted that all the sailors were rescued, later saying one was killed. But even as the families of missing sailors have publicly demanded answers, the Kremlin has largely kept up an official silence on the fate of the crew, part of a larger campaign to suppress bad news.
This is what Wikipedia actually says about the sonnerad.Funny then that Poland is the loudest voice in NATO as regards supporting them then. You're being conned.
As regards ancient symbols being appropriated, do some research.
Sonnenrad
www.adl.org
Kievan 'Rus was formed by Slavs, Finns and Scandinavian/Norse. The association between the sunwheel and Nazism is a very weak one that the vast majority of people would not even recognise, the standard Nazi swastika has a much stronger association for anyone wanting to portray such a distinction. Given that they have Jews in their ranks, I'm going to say that it is not meant to portray Nazism here and is being blown up out of proportion so that some idiot can try and restore some glory to a broken and corrupt empire.
View attachment 23747
Whether the design had a name or held any particular significance among the SS remains unknown. Its association with the occult originates with a 1991 German novel, Die Schwarze Sonne von Tashi Lhunpo ("The Black Sun of Tashi Lhunpo"), by the pseudonymous author Russell McCloud. The book links the Wewelsburg mosaic with the neo-Nazi concept of the "Black Sun", invented by former SS officer Wilhelm Landig as a substitute for the Nazi swastika.[3][4]
The Hindu swastika represents the sun. The nazi swastika and it's succesor the sonnerad represent the dark sun. These people are not representation of their own cultures but are occultic larpers of a sign they have no understanding about. Plus stop callingthese signs swastikas. These are variations of German hakkenkreuz and are essentially extension of nazis. Please don't defend the Nazism of these Nazis. You support ukriane that's ok but it's blatantly clear these people are nazis or atleast a major percent of them. There's nothing cultural about the sonnerad among the Ukrainians. Ukrainians swastikas look different.
Our plans are to take back the entirety of PoK and then aksai chin. There will be no negotiations regarding Kashmir. That much is clear.