RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: lets say psychopath then? The invasion looks like madness to your average Joe, if not to the students of geopolitics- who seem to be aligned with the Donald

Not sure this is smart in the long run, so definitely not agreeing with the Donald . But I think Putin has calculated that he can get away with this one without catastrophic loss.

Did we watch the same speech(s)? This is not a calculating Putin. This is an angry deluded Putin.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Not sure this is smart in the long run, so definitely not agreeing with the Donald . But I think Putin has calculated that he can get away with this one without catastrophic loss.

Did we watch the same speech(s)? This is not a calculating Putin. This is an angry deluded Putin.

But he knows damn well that we won’t intervene actively. So provided he can win without the war descending into another Chechnya then he know he can win. Have you seen the reaction of the world leaders? Many can’t bring themselves to condemn Russia and the European leaders brief flirtation with unity seems to be falling apart. It may hurt for a couple of years but long term he could be a winner. So I would call it a calculated risk rather than a completely unstable act.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:
While the invasion of Iraq was indeed an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law, I find the whataboutery that's going on in places at the moment very unhelpful.

Firstly, it's a false equivalence - the reasons for invading may have been spurious and the goalposts mounted on castors, but they were not to conquer and absorb new territory for a greater UK.

Secondly, it's diminishing what's going on here by allowing apologists (and Trumpists) to say, "Well everyone does it so this isn't that bad." It puts reasonable people in the invidious position of having to try and make a complex argument of, yes, that was bad, but it is neither equivalent nor excuses a nation conquering its neighbour so it can expand its borders.

It might be a great opportunity to score points at the people who were either suckered by propaganda or actively complicit in the illegal invasion, but doing so is hurting the war of ideas over what Putin is doing right now, which I regard as more important and more vital than cheap shots over actions 19 years ago.

Puja

False equivalence? Since no two events in history are identical you could claim that of any comparison. We agree that each is 'an unprovoked outrage in heinous violation of international law'. Both are illegal invasions. The aggressors are both overwhelmingly more powerful than the victim. Regime change and the installation of a compliant government is a key goal. Cities are being rocked by explosions. Innocent civilians are dying. They are both wars of aggression and therefore war crimes.

I worry that you see some real distinction between the two. Yes, Russia borders on Ukraine. The USA and UK do not border on Iraq, so the resulting vassal state was not contiguous with either. Is that really a key distinction? Does that make one war crime worse than the other?

My point is not to make light of the actions. It's to make clear that the horror being visited on Ukraine is very much like that we inflicted on Iraq. And we should not forget it, nor should those responsible be able to hide the crimes they themselves committed. This is uncomfortable for some, because we don't like to think we can be as bad as others. But, clearly, we can. Accepting this makes it less likely to happen in future (although prosecution for war crimes would be much more effective).

I do see a real distinction between the two. I would like to open this post by noting that I am not defending the invasion of Iraq - it is indefensible - but I am aware in that trying to note where I find the distinction it will sound like I am downplaying the gravity of our actions. I am not - we are discussing two types of bad, not a good and a bad.

Disclaimer done.

Invading Iraq removed a mass-murdering tyrant and a dictator and replaced him with a democratic government. Note - I am not saying this makes the invasion just or right, nor that this was the main motivation for it (nor that we did it in a particularly competent manner).

Russia invading Ukraine is seeking to depose a democratically elected government. More than that, it is looking to erase Ukraine as a separate state. It is a war to expand borders. Yes, I do think that is worse than what we did in Iraq.

Puja

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Did we watch the same speech(s)? This is not a calculating Putin. This is an angry deluded Putin.

But he knows damn well that we won’t intervene actively. So provided he can win without the war descending into another Chechnya then he know he can win. Have you seen the reaction of the world leaders? Many can’t bring themselves to condemn Russia and the European leaders brief flirtation with unity seems to be falling apart. It may hurt for a couple of years but long term he could be a winner. So I would call it a calculated risk rather than a completely unstable act.

How many losses did they suffer in the most recent Chechnya war? like 3800 or so? Well in the first two days of this war they've lost 2800.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Especially when you're massively outgunned; the blitzkrieg is taking place on the Steppes; but you massively outnumber the enemy.

As for numbers, 190k Russians Vs 200k Ukrainians is the figures being talked about for the last week or so, but then add "every Ukrainian who wants one" with a Kalashnikov and/or petrol bomb.

Retreat to the cities, and bleed them, is surely the best tactic for the Ukrainians, only stand and fight when you've got a concentration of forces and/or easily defensible positions.

I should note though, that my military training is limited to several hours playing Total War

The numbers are fairly even (if anything they are in Ukraine's favour when considering mobilization), the main difference is that Russia has superior air power.

History is the best example, conceding territory and retreating to redoubts before launching a counter offensive is how the Red Army defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

Erm, I’d suggest that the majority of Soviet troops were hammered in place before fresh forces were able to get to grips with the Germans. Millions surrounded and taken prisoner suggests they weren’t pulling back but we’re out thought and out fought before learning how to fight on the same terms, or at least effectively.

That said, not letting your best forces get destroyed on day one is always a good idea and cities are very defensible. Much will depend on how aggressive the Russians are when they come up against heavy fighting and how much care they take to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.

Galfon wrote:Zelensky open to discussions with Putin to negotiate a ceasefire..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 23725.html

can't see Donetsk/Luhansk being on the table somehow.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Did we watch the same speech(s)? This is not a calculating Putin. This is an angry deluded Putin.

But he knows damn well that we won’t intervene actively. So provided he can win without the war descending into another Chechnya then he know he can win. Have you seen the reaction of the world leaders? Many can’t bring themselves to condemn Russia and the European leaders brief flirtation with unity seems to be falling apart. It may hurt for a couple of years but long term he could be a winner. So I would call it a calculated risk rather than a completely unstable act.

How many losses did they suffer in the most recent Chechnya war? like 3800 or so? Well in the first two days of this war they've lost 2800.

Zhivago wrote: 3500 Russian losses now

cashead wrote:Meanwhile, the Russian government is talking mess about Sweden and Finland, apparently, with not-so-veiled threats about "consequences" if they join NATO.

Galfon wrote:The Russians 'not meeting early objectives' and the various reports of losses over the last 2 days,(even if exaggerated ) indicate it won't be a cake-walk; urban warfare can be a gaping wound for an aggressor these days, and Ukr appear to have given up open space to focus on defence of the cities.The longer it drags on the harder it will be for Putin to meet his broader objectives.
In the meantime Imran Khan was 'excited' to meet VP this week to discuss a new gas pipeline, and India is looking at ways to soften the effect of Russian sanctions on their trading with the country..
Sands certainly shifting.

Galfon wrote:

Zhivago wrote: 3500 Russian losses now

and Zelensky's staying put..
Kiev will be more Kobane than Kabul - Putin may not care, but when the families in Russia start getting the news, maybe the people will start questioning things.
Also, China, India and the UAE abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Moscow obvs. vetoed).China has so far refused to call Russia’s action in Ukraine an ‘invasion’ or criticise the actions and has also lifted wheat import restrictions imposed in recent months over other concerns.
This closer co-operation will be causing some nervousness given China's similar aspirations elsewhere.

Galfon wrote:

Zhivago wrote: 3500 Russian losses now

and Zelensky's staying put..
Kiev will be more Kobane than Kabul - Putin may not care, but when the families in Russia start getting the news, maybe the people will start questioning things.
Also, China, India and the UAE abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Moscow obvs. vetoed).China has so far refused to call Russia’s action in Ukraine an ‘invasion’ or criticise the actions and has also lifted wheat import restrictions imposed in recent months over other concerns.
This closer co-operation will be causing some nervousness given China's similar aspirations elsewhere.

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:

Zhivago wrote: 3500 Russian losses now

and Zelensky's staying put..
Kiev will be more Kobane than Kabul - Putin may not care, but when the families in Russia start getting the news, maybe the people will start questioning things.
Also, China, India and the UAE abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Moscow obvs. vetoed).China has so far refused to call Russia’s action in Ukraine an ‘invasion’ or criticise the actions and has also lifted wheat import restrictions imposed in recent months over other concerns.
This closer co-operation will be causing some nervousness given China's similar aspirations elsewhere.

I think it's actually a pretty good sign that China abstained rather than voting against - they are always going to be on Russia's side, both in terms of having them as an ally forming a counterweight against American strength and because China would like to do a bit more military adventuring and border expansion themselves, but abstaining is as close as they're likely to come to a rebuke and is a pretty solid win for Western diplomats.

I am starting to think that the entire security of the world order depends on Ukraine's defence of Kyiv. If Putin wins comprehensively, there will be sanctions and there'll be grumbling, but victory covers all sins and other belligerent nations will be emboldened. Defeat or a prolonged stalemate however will humiliate him and deter other belligerents far more effectively than any UN resolutions ever could.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:

Zhivago wrote: 3500 Russian losses now

and Zelensky's staying put..
Kiev will be more Kobane than Kabul - Putin may not care, but when the families in Russia start getting the news, maybe the people will start questioning things.
Also, China, India and the UAE abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Moscow obvs. vetoed).China has so far refused to call Russia’s action in Ukraine an ‘invasion’ or criticise the actions and has also lifted wheat import restrictions imposed in recent months over other concerns.
This closer co-operation will be causing some nervousness given China's similar aspirations elsewhere.

I think it's actually a pretty good sign that China abstained rather than voting against - they are always going to be on Russia's side, both in terms of having them as an ally forming a counterweight against American strength and because China would like to do a bit more military adventuring and border expansion themselves, but abstaining is as close as they're likely to come to a rebuke and is a pretty solid win for Western diplomats.

I am starting to think that the entire security of the world order depends on Ukraine's defence of Kyiv. If Putin wins comprehensively, there will be sanctions and there'll be grumbling, but victory covers all sins and other belligerent nations will be emboldened. Defeat or a prolonged stalemate however will humiliate him and deter other belligerents far more effectively than any UN resolutions ever could.

Puja

Zhivago wrote:

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote: and Zelensky's staying put..
Kiev will be more Kobane than Kabul - Putin may not care, but when the families in Russia start getting the news, maybe the people will start questioning things.
Also, China, India and the UAE abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Moscow obvs. vetoed).China has so far refused to call Russia’s action in Ukraine an ‘invasion’ or criticise the actions and has also lifted wheat import restrictions imposed in recent months over other concerns.
This closer co-operation will be causing some nervousness given China's similar aspirations elsewhere.

I think it's actually a pretty good sign that China abstained rather than voting against - they are always going to be on Russia's side, both in terms of having them as an ally forming a counterweight against American strength and because China would like to do a bit more military adventuring and border expansion themselves, but abstaining is as close as they're likely to come to a rebuke and is a pretty solid win for Western diplomats.

I am starting to think that the entire security of the world order depends on Ukraine's defence of Kyiv. If Putin wins comprehensively, there will be sanctions and there'll be grumbling, but victory covers all sins and other belligerent nations will be emboldened. Defeat or a prolonged stalemate however will humiliate him and deter other belligerents far more effectively than any UN resolutions ever could.

Puja

I think a humiliated Putin would be a very dangerous creature.

paddy no 11 wrote:Zelensky playing a blinder

EU needs to do all it can for Ukraine

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think it's actually a pretty good sign that China abstained rather than voting against - they are always going to be on Russia's side, both in terms of having them as an ally forming a counterweight against American strength and because China would like to do a bit more military adventuring and border expansion themselves, but abstaining is as close as they're likely to come to a rebuke and is a pretty solid win for Western diplomats.

I am starting to think that the entire security of the world order depends on Ukraine's defence of Kyiv. If Putin wins comprehensively, there will be sanctions and there'll be grumbling, but victory covers all sins and other belligerent nations will be emboldened. Defeat or a prolonged stalemate however will humiliate him and deter other belligerents far more effectively than any UN resolutions ever could.

Puja

I think a humiliated Putin would be a very dangerous creature.

I agree. Unless he is so damaged that he is toppled, although by whom and would they be any better?

Sandydragon wrote:Putin has ordered his strategic nuclear deterrent forces onto the highest alert levels in response to western aggression.

There’s brinksmanship and then there is madness. I think I might be changing my mind about his mental state.