Ukraine - Russia Conflict

[randomradio]

Mogilization is not an instant thing nor a stealthy thing. Before February, most of NATO expected Russia would just try to invade the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, instead of attempting to take over the entire country. But that was partly due to the lack of serious preparation. And this partial loss of territory would, back then, have been accepted as no big deal.

If Russia had started to mogilize its troops, then while they're doing that, the other side can prepare as well. So I doubt things would have gone as smoothly for Russia as you think. Besides, one constant of Russian thinking is that they lie to everyone including themselves. They thought they had enough force to take over the entire country, they didn't. If they had mogilized, they would have thought they had enough forces to take over the entire Ukraine + Baltics or whatever. They'd still have come up short because with bigger means come bigger appetite.

Ukraine did mobilise, big time. Had Russia begun in March instead of Sept, they would have finished the war long before now, even if they took 2 months to mobilise. Plus a lot of their equipment would still have been intact, in comparison half of UAF was destroyed before June. And most of the Western stuff was yet to arrive back then, Himars and M777 with Excalibur etc. Bad planning on their part.

Don't get the reference for "mogil".

That's a good idea, they should send 500,000-700,000 Russian troops on very long and very thin invasion columns beelining towards Kyiv, like they did in Spring. The war would indeed get over very quickly; I fully approve of this plan.

Why not? That's how it works. As the main body, a tank division, forges ahead, BTGs take defensive positions along the line and push out. The Russians did it with far too few troops over a very large area in spring, and with the intention of not fighting, which is why they failed.

 

[Innominate]

Ukraine did mobilise, big time. Had Russia begun in March instead of Sept, they would have finished the war long before now, even if they took 2 months to mobilise. Plus a lot of their equipment would still have been intact, in comparison half of UAF was destroyed before June. And most of the Western stuff was yet to arrive back then, Himars and M777 with Excalibur etc. Bad planning on their part.

Too much copium?

Ukraine didn't mobilize until Russia invaded Ukraine was in denial that an invasion would take place. Mobilization takes weeks to get them ready for combat and by late March you orcs started retreating from Kyiv and north east Ukraine all this with Soviet era equipment. Just imagine the *censored* kicking if Ukraine started properly mobilizing in December.

 

[A Person]

Ukraine did mobilise, big time.

Ukraine mobilized after Russian troops started rolling in.

Had Russia begun in March instead of Sept, they would have finished the war long before now, even if they took 2 months to mobilise. Plus a lot of their equipment would still have been intact, in comparison half of UAF was destroyed before June. And most of the Western stuff was yet to arrive back then, Himars and M777 with Excalibur etc. Bad planning on their part.

Yeah, you get the impression that if you time travel and change how Russia acts, this will not change how Ukraine and the West react.

Don't get the reference for "mogil".

It's how Russians nicknamed it. I already explained it weeks ago.

Why not? That's how it works. As the main body, a tank division, forges ahead, BTGs take defensive positions along the line and push out. The Russians did it with far too few troops over a very large area in spring, and with the intention of not fighting, which is why they failed.

And they'd fail again.

 

[randomradio]

If those are annexations to you, then I suppose Russia has annexed India.

It explains a lot, really.

The Russians actually tried as the SU and failed. To ideologically subvert the population, first they needed to get rid of religion. But India was far too poor and illiterate for that to happen. Hinduism being non-dogmatic also helped, since you can't attack it, only make fun of it, which is what non-Hindus constantly do anyway.

India was ideologically opposed to the West at the time, so we were safe from Western propaganda.

The Chinese have tried too, but were thwarted. The massive Naxal movement was defeated. NE terrorism was defeated. Now they have been declared our enemies, so the mistrust is extreme.

The Saudis and the Vatican have been trying for decades with mixed success. But even that's being dealt with. There's a lot of mistrust towards Abrahmic religions in general. Only yesterday the Supreme Court gave the central govt the green signal to crush their movements.

Forced religious conversion dangerous, may affect nation’s security: Supreme Court

The Bench was hearing a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to the Centre and states to take stringent steps to check such conversions.

indianexpress.com

The SC also upheld moves made to defeat caste-based ideological subversion.

EWS Quota: With 3:2 split verdict, Supreme Court upholds 10% EWS quota: Key points | India News - Times of India

India News: NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of the 103 constitutional amendment providing 10 per cent reservation to people belonging t.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

India has escaped annexation because people have been actively fighting against it for decades, and the fight still continues. Thankfully helped by the fact that there are no real takers for the ridiculous philosophies peddled by Abrahmic religions, communism, fascism etc.

Otoh, some of our neighbours have failed to escape. Decisions for Pakistan are made outside Pakistan, basically a hooker sold to the highest bidder. Sri Lanka is on the threshold of becoming a Chinese colony, unless India does something about it. Nepal, an erstwhile Hindu kingdom, is now a commie country masquerading as a democracy, it's pretty much working for the Chinese now. Maldives switches loyalty based on the situation, being in such a prime location, so it has retained some amounts of sovereignty, although likely to choose India during a scrap. Bangladesh has partly escaped annexation due to India's help, people claim it's been annexed by India, though it's not, I'd say "not yet". Bhutan is basically an Indian pseudo-state, a protectorate, so it has successfully retained its ethos and culture, like any other Indian state.

We are still a long way from being annexed.

Yeah, because China was doing better than you and you realised that the Soviet/Russian system was sh!t as the USSR collapsed.

Not really. For us, the US gave us freedom of choice. A chance to no longer be a pariah. We still haven't chosen a side, the proof is in the pudding, this war.

 

[randomradio]

This is bonkers. How the hell 90's india would be preparing to face off US? Our economy was even more minisculein 90's.
Pls, drop this westophobia.

Doesn't matter what the size of the economy is, the US has plenty of enemies today even smaller than we were in the 90s.

Our policies were more inwards and protectionist and our security was beginning to take shape based on 3 enemies. It's just that the US was third in the list, until the US decided they want to be our friends. It's among the reason why we did not buy any Western weapons during the period between the fall of the SU and 123 Agreement. Our nuclear test was also aimed towards challenging the US, not Pakistan or China, although today we push the China story. The corvette-based Dhanush missile with a nuclear warhead option was also made to counter the USN.

Really!! Please explain to me how these countries are annexed by US?

No sovereignty. Core decisions are made by the Americans. Most of these countries' foreign and trade relations are made in Washington.

For example, Japan and SoKo need Russia for security reasons, just like India. But they cannot decide that on their own.

Another example, Japan's economic collapse started after they were forced to sign away 20% of their market to the US on a permanent basis in 1985 to address a major trade deficit. It came as a major shock to their economy, and they excessively overleveraged to save it, and that led to economic collapse. Without that deal, Japan would have had a much more stable and significantly larger economy today.

This is how the US 'annexes' territory. They control your finances and decision making, which they use as leverage for political purposes. Basically the US is no different from a boss in a company that makes its own HR rules, and we are all the hapless employees. Global finance in the world today is controlled by the US.

This has nothing to do with any nonsensical phobia. The US is too strong for the world's good. There is no balance of power.

 

[jetray]

 

[jetray]

Doesn't matter what the size of the economy is, the US has plenty of enemies today even smaller than we were in the 90s.

During the 90's US helped to create hurriyat and were hammering India on kashmir while supporting terrorists. Insurgents & gunmen are even today the favorite words of the west was liberally used then. PVN who was the PM then had put up with the interference as we needed world bank aid.

 

[randomradio]

Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lyman, Izium, Kherson. That's 5 individual and significant victories, and all in the space of 10 weeks. Think about the length of time it took Russia to occupy those areas vs the amount of time it took to remove them.

That's just taking territory. A battlefield victory requires destruction of field units.

Examples:

Battle of Asal Uttar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Waterloo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another wrong assessment.
Holding kiev,
Kharkhiv offensive????

^^^ The post above.

 

[randomradio]

There are racists in India, you have the caste system, therefore it's okay for China to invade you right, or anyone for that matter?

What about this symbol? Have you any idea what it represents in Eastern Europe? I'll give you a clue, it's worse than Nazism. Nazi occupation lasted 6 years, Soviet occupation lasted 5-7+ decades and killed far more people.

 

[randomradio]

Caste system is present everywhere & is natural order of any hierarchy society including humans, it's part of Hinduism from time of it's inception..... u must be living in alternative reality if u think Nazism & caste system is same.

One thing I understand is not to educate non-Hindus about the caste system.

They get it so wrong that even vested interests who want to cause trouble can't use the opinions of non-Hindus, this prevents those who are not our well-wishers from interfering in the system 'cause nobody will take their words seriously.

The caste system got screwed up because of non-Hindu interference. So why repeat that mistake? It's our internal cultural matter that only we can fix, regardless of the fact that all people in the world unconsciously and justifiably practice the caste system. It will also protect them from rigidising their own culture, so it's good for them as well.

 

[randomradio]

Ukraine mobilized after Russian troops started rolling in.

Yeah, I know. So, after the failure in Feb, the Russians should also have mobilised in March, alongside the Ukrainians. By May, they would have been ready for escalation. Basically the minute Mariupol fell, the conflict should have escalated into a wider one with more troops.

Yeah, you get the impression that if you time travel and change how Russia acts, this will not change how Ukraine and the West react.

They wouldn't have been able to re-armed Ukraine due to lack of time. Or at least the rearmament would have happened after the left bank had fallen. This had the potential to end the war by June end.

Let's not forget that half of the UAF standing army was destroyed by the middle of May, UAF's own words. The mere addition of 100,000 more Russian troops would have finished the job of defeating the rest of UAF by June end.

Destroying Ukraine's power infrastructure would have emptied the country as well, preventing Ukraine from mobilising properly, which took until August to finish.

It's how Russians nicknamed it. I already explained it weeks ago.

Right. Mogila.

And they'd fail again.

No. They were at full strength and had more than enough firepower. It was pussyfooting from their side that did them in.

 

[randomradio]

During the 90's US helped to create hurriyat and were hammering India on kashmir while supporting terrorists. Insurgents & gunmen are even today the favorite words of the west was liberally used then. PVN who was the PM then had put up with the interference as we needed world bank aid.

Yep. Balkanisation of India is still one of the biggest objectives of the West. And Kashmir is their ticket. But what the SU and US failed to do in Afghanistan, we succeeded in Kashmir.

 

[A Person]

That's just taking territory. A battlefield victory requires destruction of field units.

Victory is victory. It doesn't have to be on the battlefield, or rather, it doesn't have to be during a battle. War, after all, is not an end in itself but a mean to an end. If the Russians are pushed out of Ukraine, it's a victory for Ukraine. Doesn't matter if it didn't happen because a "decisive battle".

Case in point:

Guy Brossollet’s “Non-battle” | Alexander R. Galloway

And
Russian field units are getting destroyed, don't worry.

Russian Soldier Kills Self After Learning Ukraine Army Has Destroyed His Unit

Reports of suicides among Russian soldiers in Ukraine could be a sign that panic is spreading through Russia's ranks.

www.ibtimes.com

No. They were at full strength and had more than enough firepower. It was pussyfooting from their side that did them in.

I wouldn't call the mass murders at Bucha to be "pussyfooting". No, the reason they failed was because the Ukrainians were smarter. Instead of trying to stop them head-on, which they did not have the means to do outside of the fortified Donbass region, they left them enter and then they instead applied friction. Harassing the columns, slowing them down, destroying the fuel tanks so that the entire column would be immobilized, etc. This gave them enough time to move their artillery and destroy the columns that still moved, and capture those that were abandoned. This was quite similar to Brossollet's idea of a non-battle.

 

[South block]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591960679795363840

 

[RASALGHUL]

Doesn't matter what the size of the economy is, the US has plenty of enemies today even smaller than we were in the 90s.

Our policies were more inwards and protectionist and our security was beginning to take shape based on 3 enemies. It's just that the US was third in the list, until the US decided they want to be our friends. It's among the reason why we did not buy any Western weapons during the period between the fall of the SU and 123 Agreement. Our nuclear test was also aimed towards challenging the US, not Pakistan or China, although today we push the China story. The corvette-based Dhanush missile with a nuclear warhead option was also made to counter the USN.

Why would US wanted to go war with India? your thoughts.

No sovereignty. Core decisions are made by the Americans.

Annexation meaning subjugating people through brute force. Is US has done this to japan, Soko?
But, yes you can say that countries like japan, soko are not fully sovereign. However again this doesn't mean that they are annexed by US.

Most of these countries' foreign and trade relations are made in Washington.

Any Sources that trade agreements/ Relations are done at the mercy of US for countries like soko, japan, Philippines, etc.

For example, Japan and SoKo need Russia for security reasons, just like India. But they cannot decide that on their own.

Another example, Japan's economic collapse started after they were forced to sign away 20% of their market to the US on a permanent basis in 1985 to address a major trade deficit. It came as a major shock to their economy, and they excessively overleveraged to save it, and that led to economic collapse. Without that deal, Japan would have had a much more stable and significantly larger economy today.

plaza Accord?? Japan signed that agreement on its own. US didn't put gun on japan head to sign this deal.

This is how the US 'annexes' territory. They control your finances and decision making, which they use as leverage for political purposes. Basically the US is no different from a boss in a company that makes its own HR rules, and we are all the hapless employees. Global finance in the world today is controlled by the US.

This has nothing to do with any nonsensical phobia. The US is too strong for the world's good. There is no balance of power.

Do you think china would be a better option?

 

[RASALGHUL]

Yep. Balkanisation of India is still one of the biggest objectives of the West.

Again, cite Sources???
Also, Why west wanted to balkanize India?

And Kashmir is their ticket. But what the SU and US failed to do in Afghanistan, we succeeded in Kashmir.

SU too had devious plans for India. If KGB defector Yuri bezmenov to be believed.

 

[RASALGHUL]

For example, Japan and SoKo need Russia for security reasons

security from ??

 

[BMD]

U do realise that Lower caste have ruled large chunk of india in past ? Just to give u an e.g Nair of kerela ( sth india ) are shudra only who have ruled kerela while maratha are aslo LC who have ruled Maharashtra & even some part of North India historically, same goes for many other south indian Empire..... Jab lode ka pata nahi hota to bakchodi nahi karte.

The caste system is still racism.

 

[BMD]

you think west is different from them
both are 2 sides of the same coin.

In the 19th century and before maybe, although Russia Russia cleared out a large part of the most densely populated continent on the planet. But now they are not nearly the same. When was the last time the West annexed a country vs Russia.

lol, you mean US will not blow up the pipeline or a coup will not take place in the african country.

Simple economics, Africa is closer and labour costs are likely lower too.

steal oil from them then complain about refugees from their countries, what a hypocrisy.

Refugees these days are 90% illegal immigrants and they don't come from Africa, they come from France. And France has also taken to playing the role of a third world country by blackmailing first world governments for money just so that their police do their job and stop criminal gangs illegally transporting migrants.

 

[BMD]

middle east, philippines
eastern european countries are banana republics , SoKo was a dictatorship now it is ruled by chaebol clans.

ROK has a much higher rating than India.

Democracy Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

That's just taking territory. A battlefield victory requires destruction of field units.

It did that too. Stop kidding yourself.