Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This question mark should be resolved soon. As I said, thousands of Russian troops are just sitting and doing nothing. I assume that they are going to be used at some time.
Also, if the MoD forces were never successful in any offensives, who took all the Ukrainian land so far, and cities like Mariupol?
It was the LDNR militia that operated mostly in Mariupol and elsewhere in Eastern Ukraine.
MoD troops were in supportive role. ( Plus Chechen "Akhmat" of course.)
Quote:
And if Putin is a moron, why has he been successful in places like Syria and South Ossetia over these years.
Why wouldn't he be successful in those places, having Assad as his close ally, and Americans not being able to help ISIS out in the open?
Same with Ossetia - why wouldn't he ( Putin) not being able to deal with Georgian troops, while the locals didn't want anything to do with them?
Quote:
Why is he so popular among Russians and is still president?
It all goes back to what happened in the nineties and the way Putin positioned himself from that point on. "The savior of Russia."
But "savior" he was not. Just a temporary ( and really bad in the long run) solution.
By now at least part of Russians are waking up to it. And they are mostly the people that rally around the army effort to defeat Ukraine.
Quote:
Putin may be many things but I don't think that he is stupid.
He is definitely not stupid.
It's just his TRUE priorities are not what he claims them to be.
Quote:
It is likely that he did not act militarily in 2014, other than help prevent Ukrainian forces from entering Donbass and repatriating the people back to Ukraine there, because he wanted to solve the problem diplomatically.
A. He didn't hesitate to "solve the problem" with Crimea in the most "undiplomatic" way. Because Crimea was essential to him from strategic point of view. Donbass was not. It's only NOW he claims that "Russia needs to protect the Donbass population from Ukrainian aggression."
Where was he for the last nine years?
B. There were no "Ukrainian troops" to speak of at THAT point, plus many of them on top were ready to plead the oath of allegiance to Russia, particularly those from the South-East.
Girkin/Strelkov who was there in Donbass at that time ( and who warned Russian government of everything that was taking place) attested to it all.
So Strelkov was simply removed from Ukraine by Kremlin and told to keep his mouth shut basically.
Quote:
The US led him on in this all the while planning on Russia's demise.
That's for sure, but Putin was the first one to blink back in 2014, even though he was warned.
But he preferred to defend the interests of his financial elite first and utmost, hoping to negotiate with Europeans first of all to ease the economic sanctions, as in "you accept Crimea as rightfully mine, and in exchange I won't bring my troops in Donbass."
He had other smart -a** plans for Ukraine, and that's where "Minsk 1,2" came in place, until this plan proved to be worthless. After Blinken officially vetoed it, Puin already knew that there was no way forward for him but to go to the full-blown war with US in Ukraine.
Quote:
This just shows Putin's restraint and not being some wacko dictator who attacks all neighboring countries and adds them to his empire.
This just showed that when it comes to Russia, serving financial interests over spiritual ( i.e serving the national interests first and utmost) is the dead end.
And that's the reason why I think Putin won't remain in his presidential chair for long, since winning this war is essential for Russians, as much as they might be split in their opinions regarding today's government ( and this includes MoD.)
One of the biggest complaints of Zelensky regarding the loss of Crimea was that "Russians will never be able to love that land ( Crimea) as we do."
Zelensky says a lot of stupid **** for public consumption. He is a politician and a Jew. His job is to convince the Ukrainians to become cannon fodder in a war to retake Crimea. You'll have to pardon me if I don't understand how Ukrainians would feel stronger sentiments towards Crimea than Russians, especially the Russian-speaking Crimeans who almost universally want nothing to do with Ukraine.
I could make up some lovely story about how much I love Puerto Rico, how Puerto Rico has been part of America for 125 years, how Jennifer Lopez, Luis Fonsi, and Ricky Martin are part of American culture, how the Puerto Ricans fought bravely for the US military and earned medals of bravery, and something about how I took a Cruise that stopped at San Juan, and how beautiful it was, and how much I loved the local cuisine.
But here's the truth. Not only do I not care about Puerto Rico, I want nothing to do with them. We took the Philippines at the same time as Puerto Rico and held it until WWII when the Japanese invaded and threw us off the island. Thank god for that. Though sadly, the Philippines remains a quasi-colony of the United States and there are more than four million Filipinos living in the United States because of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
In fact for Ukrainians it's kinda an easier endeavor in this sense - they fight "for their motherland."
Hitler discussed how to psychologically prepare the common people for war. He complained that during WWI, the British and Americans had created all kinds of sickening literature about the Germans. Describing the Germans as monsters who were raping women, killing children, and behaving like homicidal maniacs intent on global domination. Hitler complained that the German people weren't psychologically prepared for the cost of the war because the German government didn't indoctrinate the German people to hate the West and to see them as the font of all evil.
Britain and America used the same playbook during WWII and in the lead-up to WWII. Vilifying the Germans/Nazis, making up all kinds of atrocious stories about war crimes, rape, genocide, kidnapping children, and other brutality because they needed people to fight.
Usually after a war ends the truth comes out. Partly because the lie is impossible to maintain, but also because maintaining the fiction is no longer necessary. In Hitler's case, the war propaganda never went away, and it is illegal in many countries to even question it.
Hitler wanted Britain as their ally and to create a kind of pan-European alliance. Which is why the Germans never created much anti-Western propaganda. Almost all of Hitler's propaganda was aimed at the Soviet Union. And more specifically, the Jews and the political commissars. The Germans generally portrayed the Russians as being abused by Judeo-Bolshevism. With the Jews using the Soviet Union(and the Asiatics/Mongols) as their weapon to destroy Europe.
The West has spent the last 30 years creating a caricature of the Russians for the Ukrainians to hate. The Russians have become the epitome of all evil. These are WWI/WWII propaganda tactics, stories of genocide, rape, corruption, and murder, with Ukraine as the perpetual victim of Russian aggression.
For the West, the more Ukraine/Europe hates Russia the better. Every news story is designed for that purpose. On the contrary, the Russian government is incapable of mobilizing hatred for Ukraine/Europe in the same way because the entire Russian narrative depends on seeing Ukraine as their friend and spiritual brother, and never portraying Europe as their enemy.
For Ukraine it is merely this quote from Hermann Goering... "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
For Russia, I think the war is still fundamentally about self-defense but Russia has an identity-crisis. Russia needs nationalists to fight because nationalists(and religious fundamentalists) are always the most motivated fighters, but Russia isn't a real nation.
The United States has a similar problem. America is the fakest country in the entire world. America was able to mobilize Americans for our Wars on Terror in part because we were attacked on 9/11, in part because the war became about Islam, but mostly because the wars had no visible cost. They didn't hurt the economy, and they didn't affect people's daily lives.
If the United States had to fight a costly prolonged war that required a draft and rationing, it would have to be against the devil himself because very few Americans would be willing to make that kind of sacrifice.
But at least in the United States there would be a few people willing to fight for their "way-of-life"(standard-of-living/social stability). A lot of Russians wanted to leave Russia even before the war. Russia is constantly trying to foster a sense of identity, culture, national pride, etc. But efforts are generally incoherent and contradictory.
I feel like Russians are often so unpatriotic, apathetic, and even suicidal, that even if Ukraine invaded and occupied Belgorod, it wouldn't change much. I think part of the problem is that Russians probably feel like they're basically going it alone, and that their friends are hardly the friends they want(BRICS/OPEC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
So no, it's not "material" for Ukrainians at all.
As I've told you countless times before, the only thing that matters in every country are "the elite". I don't take much stock in what the Ukrainians believe because I don't think any of it is organic. And neither does Arestovich.
When I said the goals of Ukraine are materialistic. What I mean is that the real reason Ukraine wants the Donbas is because of its resources and industrial capacity. I remember reading that a quarter of all Ukrainian exports came from Azovstal alone. Without the Donbas and the Black Sea coast, Ukraine is landlocked and impoverished. Had Ukraine not went to war against the pro-Russian separatists, they would have lost 90% of the Ukrainian economy and would have been worthless to the West.
For that matter, the true motives behind the 2014 coup, even going back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, was that the Ukrainians believed they would be richer if they joined the EU. Ukrainians don't want to join the EU because they agree with their politics and want mass-migration, refugees, transgenders, etc. To the Ukrainians, the EU means money. Period. Nothing else.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine has no greater geopolitical ambitions. They are not and will never be a world power.
You mentioned before how Russian elites wanted the Soviet Union to collapse because they could make more money. Which is correct. Empires invariably are forced to subsidize their vassals/dependencies/client-states. It's the only way to maintain their loyalty. Russian energy was subsidizing the entire Soviet bloc. The United States has likewise been subsidizing Europe since WWII.
In short, the interests of empires are not purely material, whereas the interests of states are. Does that make any sense?
"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." - Zbigniew Brzezinski
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-19-2023 at 11:53 AM..
What has Russia done to itself?....
This week alone -
G7 Summit in Japan. No Russia
Arab League Summit in Saudi Arabia. No Russia
Central Asian Summit in China. No Russia.
Where has Russia been?..... Foreign Minister Lavrov was in Uganda (), where he signed a joint agreement not to send weapons to space.
Putin will be very careful about leaving Russia. After all, he is a wanted criminal in many countries and someone might figure out a way to arrest him. Russia's continuous absence from policy making sessions will result in Russia disappearing entirely from the policy making groups. They are doing all this to themselves and cannot figure out how to stop.
It was the LDNR militia that operated mostly in Mariupol and elsewhere in Eastern Ukraine.
MoD troops were in supportive role. ( Plus Chechen "Akhmat" of course.)
Why wouldn't he be successful in those places, having Assad as his close ally, and Americans not being able to help ISIS out in the open?
Same with Ossetia - why wouldn't he ( Putin) not being able to deal with Georgian troops, while the locals didn't want anything to do with them?
It all goes back to what happened in the nineties and the way Putin positioned himself from that point on. "The savior of Russia."
But "savior" he was not. Just a temporary ( and really bad in the long run) solution.
By now at least part of Russians are waking up to it. And they are mostly the people that rally around the army effort to defeat Ukraine.
He is definitely not stupid.
It's just his TRUE priorities are not what he claims them to be.
A. He didn't hesitate to "solve the problem" with Crimea in the most "undiplomatic" way. Because Crimea was essential to him from strategic point of view. Donbass was not. It's only NOW he claims that "Russia needs to protect the Donbass population from Ukrainian aggression."
Where was he for the last nine years?
B. There were no "Ukrainian troops" to speak of at THAT point, plus many of them on top were ready to plead the oath of allegiance to Russia, particularly those from the South-East.
Girkin/Strelkov who was there in Donbass at that time ( and who warned Russian government of everything that was taking place) attested to it all.
So Strelkov was simply removed from Ukraine by Kremlin and told to keep his mouth shut basically.
That's for sure, but Putin was the first one to blink back in 2014, even though he was warned.
But he preferred to defend the interests of his financial elite first and utmost, hoping to negotiate with Europeans first of all to ease the economic sanctions, as in "you accept Crimea as rightfully mine, and in exchange I won't bring my troops in Donbass."
He had other smart -a** plans for Ukraine, and that's where "Minsk 1,2" came in place, until this plan proved to be worthless. After Blinken officially vetoed it, Puin already knew that there was no way forward for him but to go to the full-blown war with US in Ukraine.
This just showed that when it comes to Russia, serving financial interests over spiritual ( i.e serving the national interests first and utmost) is the dead end.
And that's the reason why I think Putin won't remain in his presidential chair for long, since winning this war is essential for Russians, as much as they might be split in their opinions regarding today's government ( and this includes MoD.)
The scale of Russian losses in 2022, combined with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation confronting NATO systems they had not previously contended with, has caused a significant deviation in Russian operations from the country’s doctrine. This report seeks to outline how Russian forces have adapted their tactics in the Ukrainian conflict and the challenges this has created for the Ukrainian military that must be overcome. The report examines Russian military adaptation by combat function.
Headlines from the summary:
Russian infantry tactics have shifted from trying to deploy uniform Battalion Tactical Groups as combined arms units of action to a stratified division by function into line, assault, specialised and disposable troops.
Russian engineering has proven to be one of the stronger branches of the Russian military. Russian engineers have been constructing complex obstacles and field fortifications across the front.
Russian armour is rarely used for attempts at breakthrough. Instead, armour is largely employed in a fire support function to deliver accurate fire against Ukrainian positions.
Russian artillery has begun to significantly refine the Reconnaissance Strike Complex following the destruction of its ammunition stockpiles and command and control infrastructure by guided multiple-launch rocket systems (GMLRS) in July 2022.
Russian electronic warfare (EW) remains potent, with an approximate distribution of at least one major system covering each 10 km of front.
Russian air defences have also seen a significant increase in their effectiveness now that they are set up around known, and fairly static, locations and are properly connected.
Russian aviation remains constrained to delivering stand-off effects, ranging from responsive lofted S-8 salvos against Ukrainian forming-up points, to FAB-500 glide bombs delivered from medium altitude to ranges up to 70 km.
Following the destruction of Russian command and control infrastructure in July 2022, the Russian military withdrew major headquarters out of range of GMLRS and placed them in hardened structures.
An overview of Russian adaptation reveals a force that is able to improve and evolve its employment of key systems. There is evidence of a centralised process for identifying shortcomings in employment and the development of mitigations. Nevertheless, much of this adaptation is reactive and is aimed at making up for serious deficiencies in Russian units. The result is a structure that becomes better over time at managing the problems it immediately faces, but also one that struggles to anticipate new threats. The conclusion therefore is that the Russian Armed Forces pose a significant challenge for the Ukrainian military on the defence. Nevertheless, if Ukraine can disrupt Russian defences and impose a dynamic situation on them, Russian units are likely to rapidly lose their coordination. Changes in the air combat environment, for example, have led rapidly to incidents of Russian fratricide.
Zelensky says a lot of stupid **** for public consumption. He is a politician and a Jew. His job is to convince the Ukrainians to become cannon fodder in a war to retake Crimea. You'll have to pardon me if I don't understand how Ukrainians would feel stronger sentiments towards Crimea than Russians, especially the Russian-speaking Crimeans who almost universally want nothing to do with Ukraine.
I see your point, but within the last 30 years, Ukrainians got used to the thought that Crimea is "theirs" - i.e. it's a place that you can go any time to spend your vacation. ( And it's a lovely place for vacation - I've been there in my childhood, as much as in Kherson.)
So Ukrainians didn't stop coming to Crimea even after it was taken over by the Russians ( just to let you know,) and Zelensky's family still owned the apartment there ( in fact until the last year I think,) but it was registered in his wife's name.
So that's that.
As for the locals - of course they wanted little to do with any artificial "Ukrainianisation" process, supported by Americans. They wanted to remain who they were before the USSR was split, which basically meant "Soviet" culture, where everyone lived side by side, speaking whichever language they liked - be that Russian or Ukrainian or anything in-between.
It was this forcible "Ukrainianization" that made them staunchly Russian.
Quote:
I could make up some lovely story about how much I love Puerto Rico, how Puerto Rico has been part of America for 125 years, how Jennifer Lopez, Luis Fonsi, and Ricky Martin are part of American culture, how the Puerto Ricans fought bravely for the US military and earned medals of bravery, and something about how I took a Cruise that stopped at San Juan, and how beautiful it was, and how much I loved the local cuisine.
But here's the truth. Not only do I not care about Puerto Rico, I want nothing to do with them. We took the Philippines at the same time as Puerto Rico and held it until WWII when the Japanese invaded and threw us off the island. Thank god for that. Though sadly, the Philippines remains a quasi-colony of the United States and there are more than four million Filipinos living in the United States because of it.
You made me laugh here, but no, it's not exactly like that in case of Crimea.
You need to remember that only 30 years ago Ukrainians and Russians were one and the same country, one and the same culture, and Zelensky made his fortunes in Russia and Russian-speaking South-East first of all.
Just an example - that's him back in 2013, on the yearly "Blue light" ( New Year's eve) Russian program on channel 1, as a well-known comedian. ( The other guy, who is well-known comedian too, immigrated to Israel after the beginning of the SMO ( he was always critical of Putin.)
Hitler discussed how to psychologically prepare the common people for war. He complained that during WWI, the British and Americans had created all kinds of sickening literature about the Germans. Describing the Germans as monsters who were raping women, killing children, and behaving like homicidal maniacs intent on global domination. Hitler complained that the German people weren't psychologically prepared for the cost of the war because the German government didn't indoctrinate the German people to hate the West and to see them as the font of all evil.
Britain and America used the same playbook during WWII and in the lead-up to WWII. Vilifying the Germans/Nazis, making up all kinds of atrocious stories about war crimes, rape, genocide, kidnapping children, and other brutality because they needed people to fight.
Usually after a war ends the truth comes out. Partly because the lie is impossible to maintain, but also because maintaining the fiction is no longer necessary. In Hitler's case, the war propaganda never went away, and it is illegal in many countries to even question it.
Hitler wanted Britain as their ally and to create a kind of pan-European alliance, so the Germans never created much anti-Western propaganda. Almost all of Hitler's propaganda was aimed at the Soviet Union. And more specifically, the Jews and the political commissars. The Germans generally portrayed the Russians as being abused by Judeo-Bolshevism. With the Jews using the Soviet Union(and the Asiatics/Mongols) as their weapon to destroy Europe.
Allow me to skip the comments on Hitler's Germany, I already know your point of view on it, and I mostly disagree with it, even though I am well aware of the loans that Hitler received both from US and England for the German armament. So part of your description is actually true, yes. Germany was encouraged to attack the Russians.
Quote:
The West has spent the last 30 years creating a caricature of the Russians for the Ukrainians to hate. The Russians have become the epitome of all evil. These are WWI/WWII propaganda tactics, stories of genocide, rape, corruption, and murder, with Ukraine as the perpetual victim of Russian aggression.
Again - partially it's true, and partially not, because these seeds of the Western propaganda fell on a very fertile soil as it already was.
Quote:
For the West, the more Ukraine/Europe hates Russia the better. Every news story is designed for that purpose.
True that.
Quote:
On the contrary, the Russian government is incapable of mobilizing hatred for Ukraine/Europe in the same way because the entire Russian narrative depends on seeing Ukraine as their friend and spiritual brother, and never portraying Europe as their enemy.
To make the long story short - yes to all this yet again.
Quote:
For Ukraine it is merely this quote from Hermann Goering... "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
I would disagree with that in this day and age, because with the existence of the internet and expanded international communication, it's much easier for many people to check on facts, and whether what their government is telling them is true or not.
Quote:
For Russia, I think the war is still fundamentally about self-defense but Russia has an identity-crisis.
Agree.
Quote:
Russia needs nationalists to fight because nationalists(and religious fundamentalists) are always the most motivated fighters, but Russia isn't a real nation.
Yes again, but here comes the tricky part.
Russia is a multi-ethnic country ( Ukrainians being part of it,) so how do you go about the "nationalism" in this case?
P.S. Allow me to comment on the rest later, because you bring so many different subjects at the same time, that they need to be addressed in chunks, because the way you make the connections to tie one piece with the other is very different comparably to the way I piece them together/connect the dots.
You must be an "extroverted thinker" ( that's a "feature," the way the mind operates in different psychological types.)
I am the "introverted" thinker.
So I go much slower, analyzing the given material, and rearranging it as I see it fit,according to the very tightly-knit string of logic.
Last edited by erasure; 05-19-2023 at 12:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), where he signed a joint agreement not to send weapons to space.
