Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
Now 2 days into month 9. Russia's only achievements:
1. Nearly 70,000 dead soldiers, >200,000 wounded or captured.
2. Facing votes of 143-5 at the UN, which is an unprecedented majority against.
3. Massive loss of assets.
4. Reduced opinion worldwide of the effectiveness of the Russian military and equipment.
5. Loss of GDP, increase in debt, increase in deficit.
Oh? They'll start importing from Iran and Eritrea now?
You forget that it was the West that started this.
Why don't you read the Minsk Protocols and look how tame it is compared to the current situation?
Minsk agreements - Wikipedia
You will notice that the Russians did not ask for anything excessive.
PS: There is no genocide... yet.
He is arguing along the lines of feminists. Zero accountability for their own actions. Like Russia simply woke up one day and the 'genocidal maniacs' that they are decided to invade a 'peaceful democratic' country.
The West has simply indoctrinated their people way too much, to the point even the highly educated have no idea what's going on.
Just read your first sentence.How about the mass graves?
Russia caused the damn 8 year Donbass war that he now tries to write up as genocide. Only about 3,000 civilians died during the 8 year Donbass War, these deaths were split both sides as a result of using unguided artillery mainly. Putin has killed tens of times that many civilians and his troops have executed more than that many.
Why am I not surprised? Only idiotic people feel like idiots.
Everybody has everybody inside everything.
Russia came in much later? WTF are you talking about!? Russia began the annexation of Crimea before the revolution had even finished.
18-23rd Feb
Revolution of Dignity - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
20th Feb
Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia
As for the Donbass, Russian troops were in there by mid-2014 at the latest with 12,000 there by early 2015. You think some random locals put together a separatist movement in a few weeks.
Euromaidan protests began in Nov 2013. Nothing happens overnight.
That's how elections work. You want the guy you want in power, all he has to do is promise everyone everything. It was basically anti-incumbency. Both the Russians and Ukrainians did not like Poroshenko.
You are being surprised by normal stuff.
I told right when this conflict began that this will be the result if the conflict does not resolve in a very short time, with minimal deaths on both sides.
Funny how the West was blind to that when Pakistan used to so the same to India for decades. Anyway we know for a fact that the DPR and LPR separatists are their own unique outfits.
War-related targets. They are yet to attack civilians directly. We have only seen collateral damage from the Russian side.
Ukrainian independence referendum, 1991:
Ukrainians were pretty united in wanting to be independent. This, regardless of language.
We have a word for it... Anti-incumbency. They voted against the existing system. This is also normal, happens all the time in India. It had nothing to do with ideology or political preference.
On economic issues, the questions is moot now: the economy of the regions that traded mostly with Russia has been entirely destroyed, physically destroyed, by Russian fire. But even before Putin decided he needed to have one more bloody war on his hands before his death, that economy was declining. Soviet-era mines and industrial plants that were increasingly uncompetitive in the modern world.
And a look at the economic situation in Crimea shows that Russia doesn't really have anything to bring.
The economic effect of the Crimean annexation — ANKASAM | Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies
The Strategy for socio-economic development of Crimea to 2030[1] has formed the basis for the vision of the newly annexed region. The adopted document aims to form the modern engineering, transport, and social infrastructure, and to ensure “all-inclusive” sustainable development. Since Crimean...www.ankasam.org
You can look at economic or cultural ties, but the fact remains that Ukrainians are Ukrainians and don't want to be Russians. Even when they do speak Russian. The child-drowning bit from the Russian TV show, if you paid attention, was said in response to the show's guest talking about Russian-speaking Ukrainian children, with Russian family names (i.e., ethnic Russians) being angry at the "moskals" (slur for Russian nationals) for having ruined their country.
If what you're saying is true, then I'm sure an insurgency is brewing in occupied territories right about now.
Sad that it's happening 5 years too early. China will ramp up production as well.
Very interesting interview with General Yakovlev on the counter-performance of the Russian army in Ukraine in the Collimator podcast.
Some points:
From his personal experience, Russian generals are divided between those who think it is possible and even desirable to collaborate with the West and those who, conversely, believe that the West is still the hereditary enemy.
In 2014, the Ukrainian army is not in a position to resist because it is in the process of reform. Heavily influenced by American views, it was in the midst of a change of model between a conscript army and a professional army (the only one worthwhile for the Americans). And the Russians were hitting exactly at that moment. Nevertheless, despite all its flaws, the Ukrainian army had still managed to retake a good part of the Donbass from the separatists, requiring the intervention of the Russian army to freeze the situation. This demonstrated a capacity to react and a relative efficiency.
The critical fact for the Russian army is the lack of improvement since the beginning of the war. It can happen that a war starts badly and then recovers, and he cites for the Russians the battle of Grozny in '94, where after an initial attack against common sense, the Russian army nonetheless managed to conquer the city. None of this is happening in Ukraine and, he says, it is not going to get any better as Russian mobilisers are trained only minimally before being thrown into battle. The cadres necessary for them to become competent remained at the front. On the other hand, there is a real Russian structural deficiency in the field of training, which can be explained in part by the culture of lies institutionalised in the Russian army: to improve, it is essential to recognise one's weaknesses. Another indication that the Russians are aware of the problem is the dismissal of generals not directly involved in the conduct of the war. One can legitimately think that they were provoked by the discovery of the real level of competence of the troops for which they were responsible.
Big problem of morale and discipline in the Russian army. The mobilised troops did not volunteer to go to the front (they had ample opportunity to do so before the mobilisation) and numerous indications (videos published on social networks, the extent of the looting and the abuses committed, etc.) suggest that the officers have a deficit of authority. Even if the thefts and atrocities were carried out with the consent of the chain of command, this would nevertheless cause a breakdown in discipline.
Do not overestimate NATO's contribution to Ukraine's success. According to the (then) NATO general, if there was any training given to the Ukrainians, it was to small groups and often on extremely specific topics. There is no doubt that the Ukrainians were able to make the most of it, but the reform of their army was first and foremost their doing and according to their methods. As proof, he points to characteristics of the Ukrainian army that would be completely inconceivable to any normally constituted American officer, whether in terms of logistics (the Ukrainian army subcontracts the maintenance of its vehicles to civilian garages) or operational planning (the Kharkiv counter-offensive was carried out without air superiority, which does not exist for an American officer and can even lead to the assumption that it was primarily a Ukrainian plan). But to imagine that the Ukrainian army is an army that functions according to NATO standards or is just a front for the Pentagon is wrong.
If there is one Ukrainian characteristic that stands out from this conflict, it is an ability to integrate and use new equipment extremely quickly and effectively. He was, for example, surprised at how quickly the Ukrainians were able to integrate Western artillery into their order of battle. Or the level of efficiency of an army that has such a diverse inventory of equipment. The contribution of mobilisation is, in this respect, major, insofar as a population that has benefited from a good level of education is today in the army, while its Russian counterpart has largely fled the country.
Some points:
From his personal experience, Russian generals are divided between those who think it is possible and even desirable to collaborate with the West and those who, conversely, believe that the West is still the hereditary enemy.
In 2014, the Ukrainian army is not in a position to resist because it is in the process of reform. Heavily influenced by American views, it was in the midst of a change of model between a conscript army and a professional army (the only one worthwhile for the Americans). And the Russians were hitting exactly at that moment. Nevertheless, despite all its flaws, the Ukrainian army had still managed to retake a good part of the Donbass from the separatists, requiring the intervention of the Russian army to freeze the situation. This demonstrated a capacity to react and a relative efficiency.
The critical fact for the Russian army is the lack of improvement since the beginning of the war. It can happen that a war starts badly and then recovers, and he cites for the Russians the battle of Grozny in '94, where after an initial attack against common sense, the Russian army nonetheless managed to conquer the city. None of this is happening in Ukraine and, he says, it is not going to get any better as Russian mobilisers are trained only minimally before being thrown into battle. The cadres necessary for them to become competent remained at the front. On the other hand, there is a real Russian structural deficiency in the field of training, which can be explained in part by the culture of lies institutionalised in the Russian army: to improve, it is essential to recognise one's weaknesses. Another indication that the Russians are aware of the problem is the dismissal of generals not directly involved in the conduct of the war. One can legitimately think that they were provoked by the discovery of the real level of competence of the troops for which they were responsible.
Big problem of morale and discipline in the Russian army. The mobilised troops did not volunteer to go to the front (they had ample opportunity to do so before the mobilisation) and numerous indications (videos published on social networks, the extent of the looting and the abuses committed, etc.) suggest that the officers have a deficit of authority. Even if the thefts and atrocities were carried out with the consent of the chain of command, this would nevertheless cause a breakdown in discipline.
Do not overestimate NATO's contribution to Ukraine's success. According to the (then) NATO general, if there was any training given to the Ukrainians, it was to small groups and often on extremely specific topics. There is no doubt that the Ukrainians were able to make the most of it, but the reform of their army was first and foremost their doing and according to their methods. As proof, he points to characteristics of the Ukrainian army that would be completely inconceivable to any normally constituted American officer, whether in terms of logistics (the Ukrainian army subcontracts the maintenance of its vehicles to civilian garages) or operational planning (the Kharkiv counter-offensive was carried out without air superiority, which does not exist for an American officer and can even lead to the assumption that it was primarily a Ukrainian plan). But to imagine that the Ukrainian army is an army that functions according to NATO standards or is just a front for the Pentagon is wrong.
If there is one Ukrainian characteristic that stands out from this conflict, it is an ability to integrate and use new equipment extremely quickly and effectively. He was, for example, surprised at how quickly the Ukrainians were able to integrate Western artillery into their order of battle. Or the level of efficiency of an army that has such a diverse inventory of equipment. The contribution of mobilisation is, in this respect, major, insofar as a population that has benefited from a good level of education is today in the army, while its Russian counterpart has largely fled the country.
Yes as that would have allowed the NATO to pump in more equipment and train more soldiers for Ukraine. That is exactly what has happened.
As per USA, the total dead for Ukraine are estimated to be over 200k with another 400K wounded. So how is it going for Ukraine?
Russian Embassy in Spain Releases Bizarre Tourism Video
Move to Russia for the ‘hospitality, vodka, economy that can withstand thousands of sanctions’ — The Russian embassy in Spain shared this bizarre video on th...
youtube.com
Russian infiltration began much, much earlier.
Amusingly enough, they were hoisted by their own petard. The "Ukronazi" Azov militia? It appeared because Russia spent a lot of time and effort proping up far-right nationalist movements in Ukraine. Of course, they wanted Russian nationalist movements, but the apparition of Ukrainian nationalist movements was an inevitable consequence.
The dramatic U-turn was your position.
Ukrainian soldier saying he wants to kill the separatists: absolute proof positive that the Ukrainians are to blame for everything.
Russian propagandist saying Ukrainians need to be eradicated: eh, that's just talk.
As usual, you'll pretend partisan activity is not insurgency. You'll pretend that the Ukrainian civilians who tell the AFU which buildings have been taken over by Russian troops so that they can be shelled is not insurgency. You'll pretend any evidence that the Ukrainian civilians hate those invaders who have destroyed and looted everything are just anecdotic.
No. Wrong.
Why don't you f*cking read them?
Minsk agreements - Wikipedia
Russian court says country's soldiers in Ukraine – DW – 12/16/2021
A Russian court has acknowledged the country's armed forces are present in the eastern part of Ukraine. The Kremlin has persistently denied the presence of Russian forces in the Donbas region.
www.dw.com
Some 12,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine supporting rebels: U.S. commander
The U.S. military estimates around 12,000 Russian soldiers are supporting pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine, U.S. Army Europe Commander Ben Hodges said on Tuesday.
www.reuters.com
The Russians never complied with their own agreement, they were already in breach before they even signed it.Minsk agreements - Wikipedia
You will notice that the Russians did not ask for anything excessive.
PS: There is no genocide... yet.
Yes, Mr. Didn't Read Minsk Agreement, But Tells Everybody else to.
Exactly, and the contingency plan for the invasion of Crimea and a separatist war was in place before the revolution happened, before Yanukovych was even elected.
And Yanukovych didn't leave until 22nd February 2014. Crimea was invaded on 20th of February 2014.
Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia
Putin said the recapture of Donbass was inevitable from the moment the revolution happened, "it was just a matter of choosing the right time." He said this himself in interview earlier this year. Hence, the Minsk Agreement was just a time-buyer, he never intended it to work.
Last edited:
Nobody in their right f*cking mind is going to Russia for a holiday right now, they may as well save the money and stop advertising.Russian Embassy in Spain Releases Bizarre Tourism Video
Move to Russia for the ‘hospitality, vodka, economy that can withstand thousands of sanctions’ — The Russian embassy in Spain shared this bizarre video on th...
Even the Russian government does not claim that many. Bob him on ignore, it's just diarrhoea he provides.
