Ukraine - Russia Conflict

[RISING SUN]

So if China attacks India, India is at fault because of Quad? - That's your own dumbness spoken back at you. Aside from the fact that isn't the reason at all, as mentioned above.

Agreement on logic, not on personal attack. You need to keep emotions in check as should others.

Off topic Moderators & Administrators, there have been significant increase in visible racism, hate, personal attacks since quite some time. Generally I report and move on, but please bear in mind not everyone of us login here to read garbage language thrown left & right, by Indians, US, Europeans, Russians, all foreigners, capitalists, extremists, socialists, communists, left, right, center leaning forumers. Some degree of straight forward rules need to be implemented to keep this online place safe, civil and informative. Thank you.

 

[Tatvamasi]

“It is certainly a difference in perspective that we have to be direct with our Indian counterparts about — how we view the situation, how we would encourage them to over time take a different perspective themselves. But they are a sovereign, democratic nation. They will make their own decisions. We are not here to lecture them or insist on a certain outcome or else,” he said.

U.S. NSA: Playing long game with India, engaged in ‘deep’ dialogue

While acknowledging that the Washington and New Delhi have clear differences in their perspectives on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he said there is “much more convergence” on how to deal with the strategic challenge posed by China

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[Innominate]

Harpoons in action.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537693150105444353

 

[randomradio]

It's your own bullshit quoted back to you wrt Ukraine and NATO. Now you know how we feel every time we read your crap.

Even though the whole NATO, Ukraine, Russia under threat line of argument is horse poo anyway.

It's an incorrect analogy because India doesn't see QUAD as a military alliance. Meaning, we are not gonna allow US or European forces on our soil facing the Chinese border, so China doesn't see any NATO threat coming via India. Furthermore, no matter how much of NATO comes into India, Indian forces will still be stronger than NATO forces in the Himalayas. So the main threat will still remain India. Plus, a crucial point, India can still protect itself during the transition period, so the Chinese cannot really pre-empt it.

A more apt analogy would be if Vietnam or Philippines join an Asian NATO and allow alliance troops into their territories, then it's obvious that China will be justified in attacking these countries to pre-empt such an eventuality. It will still be illegal, but still justified from Chinese PoV, even if the rest of the world does not like it.

Same story if BD does that to India. If they join a Chinese military alliance, we will murder the fvck out of BD overnight, to pre-empt it. Same story if Ireland decided to join China against UK. Cuba or even Argentina. If Argentia joins, then both the US and UK would take them out as well. Sovereignty be damned, because alliances no longer have sovereignty. Alliances are basically gang members with a boss running the gang. Killing gangsters is accepted by society in general. Don't forget, a neutral country is more sovereign than an alliance member, which is why many prefer to be neutral.

There's not a single major power in the world that will allow an enemy to push itself right next to them. So if you want to join an alliance, you better prepare a military powerful enough to act as a deterrence during the transition period. If Russia had a bigger army, they would have attacked Finland by now. But if that happens, you have only two choices, put up or shut up. You can either defend them and start World War III, or you can just stand on the sidelines and complain while watching the country burn. And you have chosen the latter for Ukraine.

But Russia is the victim and the West are the imperialists.

Specifically in this case, yes. It's no different from how the US was the victim in the Cuban missile crisis.

But both sides are imperialists with their own spheres of influence, with both sides trying to dominate over the other. To the world, both sides are the bad guys.

 

[BMD]

It's an incorrect analogy because India doesn't see QUAD as a military alliance. Meaning, we are not gonna allow US or European forces on our soil facing the Chinese border, so China doesn't see any NATO threat coming via India. Furthermore, no matter how much of NATO comes into India, Indian forces will still be stronger than NATO forces in the Himalayas. So the main threat will still remain India. Plus, a crucial point, India can still protect itself during the transition period, so the Chinese cannot really pre-empt it.

A more apt analogy would be if Vietnam or Philippines join an Asian NATO and allow alliance troops into their territories, then it's obvious that China will be justified in attacking these countries to pre-empt such an eventuality. It will still be illegal, but still justified from Chinese PoV, even if the rest of the world does not like it.

Same story if BD does that to India. If they join a Chinese military alliance, we will murder the fvck out of BD overnight, to pre-empt it. Same story if Ireland decided to join China against UK. Cuba or even Argentina. If Argentia joins, then both the US and UK would take them out as well. Sovereignty be damned, because alliances no longer have sovereignty. Alliances are basically gang members with a boss running the gang. Killing gangsters is accepted by society in general. Don't forget, a neutral country is more sovereign than an alliance member, which is why many prefer to be neutral.

There's not a single major power in the world that will allow an enemy to push itself right next to them. So if you want to join an alliance, you better prepare a military powerful enough to act as a deterrence during the transition period. If Russia had a bigger army, they would have attacked Finland by now. But if that happens, you have only two choices, put up or shut up. You can either defend them and start World War III, or you can just stand on the sidelines and complain while watching the country burn. And you have chosen the latter for Ukraine.


Specifically in this case, yes. It's no different from how the US was the victim in the Cuban missile crisis.

But both sides are imperialists with their own spheres of influence, with both sides trying to dominate over the other. To the world, both sides are the bad guys.

No, that's why China flew a bomber by during a quad meeting alongside Russia.

China's Quad nightmare coming to fruition - Asia Times

MANILA - Not long ago, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi dismissed the whole “Indo-Pacific” discourse, the cornerstone of the Quadrilateral Security

asiatimes.com

Wrong in every possible way. So much wrong....

Increasingly strained garbage analogy....

We'll start WWIII? Finalnd are already de facto in NATO by being an EU member. Plus a second country at this point would be a clear sign Russia is set on invading all of Europe and hence they'd already started WWIII.

The Cuban missile crisis was a case of a dictatorship basing the nuclear missiles of a foreign power right next to the US. That isn't the case for Finland or Ukraine, both democracies and no nuclear weapons. Sadly though, Russia is bringing that possibility to the table. If the only thing that will stop Russia from invading Europe is short-range nuclear weapons, then that is becoming more likely.

Nearly ever country was an imperialist historically, India included. Russia still is today though, that's the difference. In Europe, there are two sides, on one side are democracies, and the other is an imperialist dictatorship. There is a clear right and wrong side to this conflict and you are wrong, your increasingly strained analogies prove it.

What we're seeing here is a small collection of dictatorships, Russia and China, mirroring Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan prior to WWII.

Harpoons in action.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537693150105444353

Another Russian ship hit? Good. This is at least expensive for them.

 

[BMD]

Agreement on logic, not on personal attack. You need to keep emotions in check as should others.

I was referring to his actual words, not him.

 

[BMD]

Shortcomings: crashed Russian Su-25 in the Belgorod region

2 more Russian tanks and crew redirected to hell.

 

[Volcano]

If that were really the case Russia would have won already. Iraq suffered roughly that rate of losses in the 1991 Gulf War, and they lost inside 6 weeks. Putin's number are ridiculous. Putin is ridiculous.


Who's official numbers?

Ukranian negotiator themselves acknowledge that they are loosing 1000 soldiers per day. It's not Putin's number, it's Ukranian number. Davyd Arakhamia is Ukranians cheif negotiator.

Ukraine suffering up to 1,000 casualties per day in Donbas, official says

Ukraine's top negotiator says 200 to 500 troops are dying daily.

www.axios.com

That number is consistent with, Mykhaylo Podolyak, Ukranian presidential aide's number of 200 Ukranian soldiers getting killed every day. When you consider that it's normal to have normal 1:3 or 1:4 death to injury ration in an artillery battle, Ukraine is looksing 1000 troops as per their offical stats

Ukrainian casualties: Kyiv losing up to 200 troops a day - Zelensky aide

Mykhaylo Podolyak told the BBC that Ukraine needs more weapons to match Russia's firepower.

www.bbc.com

 

[BMD]

SBU detained a Russian agent who was investigating the positions of the Armed Forces in Sumy region, near the border with Russia

 

[BMD]

Ukranian negotiator themselves acknowledge that they are loosing 1000 soldiers per day. It's not Putin's number, it's Ukranian number. Davyd Arakhamia is Ukranians cheif negotiator.

Ukraine suffering up to 1,000 casualties per day in Donbas, official says

Ukraine's top negotiator says 200 to 500 troops are dying daily.

www.axios.com

That number is consistent with, Mykhaylo Podolyak, Ukranian presidential aide's number of 200 Ukranian soldiers getting killed every day. When you consider that it's normal to have normal 1:3 or 1:4 death to injury ration in an artillery battle, Ukraine is looksing 1000 troops as per their offical stats

Ukrainian casualties: Kyiv losing up to 200 troops a day - Zelensky aide

Mykhaylo Podolyak told the BBC that Ukraine needs more weapons to match Russia's firepower.

www.bbc.com

I actually notice now that you said killed or injured, so yes, that's possible. But Russia also has 1,000 killed or injured per day.

Harpoons in action.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537693150105444353

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537705296558280704

 

[BMD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537644808096956417

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537646925461217280

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537709184183148544

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537727163125882881

 

[randomradio]

No, that's why China flew a bomber by during a quad meeting alongside Russia.

China's Quad nightmare coming to fruition - Asia Times

MANILA - Not long ago, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi dismissed the whole “Indo-Pacific” discourse, the cornerstone of the Quadrilateral Security

asiatimes.com

That's the limit of what they can do. India doesn't consider QUAD an alliance, and there are no NATO troops in India, so the ground reality is different from what you wanna insinuate.

Wrong in every possible way. So much wrong....

Increasingly strained garbage analogy....

We'll start WWIII? Finalnd are already de facto in NATO by being an EU member. Plus a second country at this point would be a clear sign Russia is set on invading all of Europe and hence they'd already started WWIII.

So you're basically saying if Ukraine joins the EU, then even Ukraine is assumed to be part of NATO. I thought your argument was only EU membership for Ukraine.

The Cuban missile crisis was a case of a dictatorship basing the nuclear missiles of a foreign power right next to the US. That isn't the case for Finland or Ukraine, both democracies and no nuclear weapons. Sadly though, Russia is bringing that possibility to the table. If the only thing that will stop Russia from invading Europe is short-range nuclear weapons, then that is becoming more likely.

Nearly ever country was an imperialist historically, India included. Russia still is today though, that's the difference. In Europe, there are two sides, on one side are democracies, and the other is an imperialist dictatorship. There is a clear right and wrong side to this conflict and you are wrong, your increasingly strained analogies prove it.

What we're seeing here is a small collection of dictatorships, Russia and China, mirroring Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan prior to WWII.

Another Russian ship hit? Good. This is at least expensive for them.

None of the reasons you gave here matter. The form of govt and intentions are irrelevant. You cross known red lines of an enemy state, you are inviting war. It doesn't even matter if Putin is Satan himself. That's what "red line" means. Period.

You would only be justified if you go to war with Russia in the defence of Ukraine, like we did with Pakistan to protect Bangladesh. You failed to put up and now you're complaining when others don't want to play by your rules. Never gonna happen.

Pakistan also has red lines for a nuclear first strike on India, and we have never crossed any of those red lines... yet, regardless of how many terrorist attacks we have faced.

At this time, since the West has largely decided to abandon Ukraine to its fate, then the only option now is to wait for the war to be over before picking up whatever pieces the West can salvage.

 

[Volcano]

I actually notice now that you said killed or injured, so yes, that's possible. But Russia also has 1,000 killed or injured per day.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537705296558280704

Right now, it's an artillery battle and Russians have huge advantage there. Russians are not rushing forward as they tried in the early days of the war, but trying to break the Ukrainians with substained, overwhelming artillery barrages. Ukranian troops in the east are one of their best professional units,but the replacements are not that well trained and mostly conscripted territorial defence.

Situation of the Ukrainian units in the east are bleak now a days. Some units lost over 80% of troops over a month. Ukrain have the ability to replace the looses with conscripts, but the quality of the units are going to degrade.


Russia is not loosing 1000 soldiers per day. Their looses are now a fraction of what it used to. Russian are not trying to rush forward as they once did, they are moving in very slowly, with heavy artillery and aviation support.

Right now, Ukraine is loosing the war of attrition.

 

[BMD]

That's the limit of what they can do. India doesn't consider QUAD an alliance, and there are no NATO troops in India, so the ground reality is different from what you wanna insinuate.



So you're basically saying if Ukraine joins the EU, then even Ukraine is assumed to be part of NATO. I thought your argument was only EU membership for Ukraine.



None of the reasons you gave here matter. The form of govt and intentions are irrelevant. You cross known red lines of an enemy state, you are inviting war. It doesn't even matter if Putin is Satan himself. That's what "red line" means. Period.

You would only be justified if you go to war with Russia in the defence of Ukraine, like we did with Pakistan to protect Bangladesh. You failed to put up and now you're complaining when others don't want to play by your rules. Never gonna happen.

Pakistan also has red lines for a nuclear first strike on India, and we have never crossed any of those red lines... yet, regardless of how many terrorist attacks we have faced.

At this time, since the West has largely decided to abandon Ukraine to its fate, then the only option now is to wait for the war to be over before picking up whatever pieces the West can salvage.

What you consider it as is irrelevant, it's what China considers it as that counts. Ukraine wasn't getting into NATO any time soon, having first applied in 2008, Russia considered that they were, or at least considered it an excuse for invasion. There were no NATO troops permanently based in Ukraine. Some were there, but not stationed there, they can be anywhere in the world training at any given time. I.e. When India runs aerial combat drills with NATO members.

I'm saying they were only likely to get EU membership, but the fact of the matter is that if Russia invades an EU country, they are going to get a NATO response anyway, since most NATO members are also EU members.

The form of government is highly relevant, because when you have one person operating without the consent of their people, consensual rationality is thrown out the window, and all judgements are based on the feelings of one old man, who may be partly insane, or at least highly deluded. So idiotic red lines can be set literally anywhere and pretexts fabricated out of fresh air.

Bangladesh was actually part of Pakistan at the time though, so not really the same thing. That would be like taking Russia on in Chechnya, claiming brutality, after they flattened Grozny. Ukraine is another country however, so that is more like China invading Nepal or Sri Lanka now. This is the problem with your position, you fail to see all the parallels with you own positions over the years, and come across as hypocritical because of it. Donbass and Crimea is basically J&K for Ukraine, except larger relative to the size of their country and much more valuable to them. The only reason we're not going to war in Ukraine is to try avoid a killing the planet. Whilst Russia is wrong, killing the planet over it doesn't seem to be a good solution. Far better that Ukraine is supported with materiel and sanctions, but we need and ask for external help to try and achieve the right solution while keeping the planet intact.

 

[BMD]

Right now, it's an artillery battle and Russians have huge advantage there. Russians are not rushing forward as they tried in the early days of the war, but trying to break the Ukrainians with substained, overwhelming artillery barrages. Ukranian troops in the east are one of their best professional units,but the replacements are not that well trained and mostly conscripted territorial defence.

Situation of the Ukrainian units in the east are bleak now a days. Some units lost over 80% of troops over a month. Ukrain have the ability to replace the looses with conscripts, but the quality of the units are going to degrade.


Russia is not loosing 1000 soldiers per day. Their looses are now a fraction of what it used to. Russian are not trying to rush forward as they once did, they are moving in very slowly, with heavy artillery and aviation support.

Right now, Ukraine is loosing the war of attrition.

That tactic is about to fail miserably when HIMARS and M270 hit the fields, along with more CAESAR units provided by France recently. As Picdel said early, mid-August is when you will start noticing the differences. If an enemy howitzer battalion sets up (18 pieces), 3 HIMARS will stop and wipe it out and be gone inside 60s.

Russia had 200 killed yesterday and 250 killed the day before, with 4x that number injured. NATO is training people continuous for Ukraine.

Nope, not on men, certainly not on vehicles, and definitely not on aircraft or naval assets.

 

[randomradio]

What you consider it as is irrelevant, it's what China considers it as that counts. Ukraine wasn't getting into NATO any time soon, having first applied in 2008, Russia considered that they were, or at least considered it an excuse for invasion. There were no NATO troops permanently based in Ukraine. Some were there, but not stationed there, they can be anywhere in the world training at any given time. I.e. When India runs aerial combat drills with NATO members.

I'm saying they were only likely to get EU membership, but the fact of the matter is that if Russia invades an EU country, they are going to get a NATO response anyway, since most NATO members are also EU members.

The form of government is highly relevant, because when you have one person operating without the consent of their people, consensual rationality is thrown out the window, and all judgements are based on the feelings of one old man, who may be partly insane, or at least highly deluded. So idiotic red lines can be set literally anywhere and pretexts fabricated out of fresh air.

Bangladesh was actually part of Pakistan at the time though, so not really the same thing. That would be like taking Russia on in Chechnya, claiming brutality, after they flattened Grozny. Ukraine is another country however, so that is more like China invading Nepal or Sri Lanka now. This is the problem with your position, you fail to see all the parallels with you own positions over the years, and come across as hypocritical because of it. Donbass and Crimea is basically J&K for Ukraine, except larger relative to the size of their country and much more valuable to them. The only reason we're not going to war in Ukraine is to try avoid a killing the planet. Whilst Russia is wrong, killing the planet over it doesn't seem to be a good solution. Far better that Ukraine is supported with materiel and sanctions, but we need and ask for external help to try and achieve the right solution while keeping the planet intact.

Nope. You just need to be powerful enough to prevent the Chinese from pre-empting anything.

If you consider EU membership as a route to NATO, this is what Russia pre-empted by invading Ukraine. If the West were serious about protecting Ukraine, then they would have done it. But they didn't, so none of your aguments stand on solid ground anymore.

No, the form of govt has no relevance in military matters between countries.

You are trying to be way too specific, that's irrelevant. The question is whether you actually do it or not. And you didn't. There's nothing more to it.

Don't cross red lines. Period. Forms of govt and opinions are irrelevant. Only red lines are relevant. Look at what's in store in the future for Britain. China can easily make Argentina rich, and militarise it. Then, when AUKUS fights China, Argentina could very easily invade the Falklands. Then go and argue about forms of govts and intentions with the Argentinians. None of your arguments matter to a loaded gun. Hard power reigns supreme.

 

[Volcano]

That tactic is about to fail miserably when HIMARS and M270 hit the fields, along with more CAESAR units provided by France recently. As Picdel said early, mid-August is when you will start noticing the differences. If an enemy howitzer battalion sets up (18 pieces), 3 HIMARS will stop and wipe it out and be gone inside 60s.

Russia had 200 killed yesterday and 250 killed the day before, with 4x that number injured. NATO is training people continuous for Ukraine.

Nope, not on men, certainly not on vehicles, and definitely not on aircraft or naval assets.

The number of HIMARS and M270 offered is negligible as of now( Us agreed to give 4 units of HIMARS if i remeber correctly). They won't make any difference untill way more of them are offered. French provided 12 Caesar and promised another 6. Those numbers won't make any difference,

There is nothing varified about your claim of 200 or 250 Russians getting killed per day. Almost all neutral observers put Russian casualties at a fraction of those. Ukraine is loosing the artillery battle, war in Ukraine is an artillery battle now.

 

[RISING SUN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1537709090394329088

 

[BMD]

Nope. You just need to be powerful enough to prevent the Chinese from pre-empting anything.

If you consider EU membership as a route to NATO, this is what Russia pre-empted by invading Ukraine. If the West were serious about protecting Ukraine, then they would have done it. But they didn't, so none of your aguments stand on solid ground anymore.

You are trying to be way too specific, that's irrelevant. The question is whether you actually do it or not. And you didn't. There's nothing more to it.

Don't cross red lines. Period. Forms of govt and opinions are irrelevant. Only red lines are relevant. Look at what's in store in the future for Britain. China can easily make Argentina rich, and militarise it. Then, when AUKUS fights China, Argentina could very easily invade the Falklands. Then go and argue about forms of govts and intentions with the Argentinians. None of your arguments matter to a loaded gun. Hard power reigns supreme.

Which yours is not. Military tends to be proportional to GDP, except dictatorships spend a higher %. Don't kid yourself.

So dictatorships invading democracies is okay? And if you wish to avoid nuclear war, your arguments are wrong? JFC! Are you Indian or CCP?

So killing and invasions are okay. Huh, what a strange position after you've spent 75 years lecturing the UK on how bad its empire was. Not hypocritical much.

No, the form of govt has no relevance in military matters between countries.

The form of govt and intentions are irrelevant.

WRONG! GAME OVER!

Are these even the words of an Indian? Or are they the words of the CCP that are being regurgitated because of media brainwashing?

 

[jetray]

No, that's why China flew a bomber by during a quad meeting alongside Russia.

they do it all the time just like russia does in europe, there's nothing new here.

I'm saying they were only likely to get EU membership

so does ukraine fulfill the economic criteria? ah well no, it was just another carrot dangled to make ukraine think EU will help them.