Russia invades Ukraine

[TwoYellas]

That's an oversimplification. Russia has a huge demographic problem - their population is shrinking, and that doesn't help with their traditional defence strategy: throw millions of disposable people at the enemy.

That strategy actually smashed the Nazi war machine and won WW2!

Ukraine was not becoming a de facto NATO member. That’s pure fiction. Yes, they wanted to join, but while there is a military dispute, they would never be invited to join.

I don't think that's strictly true.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/does-nonmember-ukraine-have-de-facto-article-5-commitment-nato

Quote from above article:

"There are two major problems with the argument. First, Putin and other Russian leaders had long stressed that NATO membership for Ukraine would cross a red line, triggering a war. Indeed, Kremlin officials viewed even more limited Western actions, such as shipping sophisticated weaponry to Kyiv, conducting joint war games with NATO and Ukrainian forces, and sharing intelligence with Ukraine’s government, as serious provocations."

There's lots of lovely aspirations in this thread about how Ukraine could be neutral and reach an accomodation with Russia as if Russia was a reasonable country. The fatal flaw in these pleasant fantasies is that a reasonable accomodation requires two reasonable parties. Russia is anything but, and the more not being so works out for it the more it will not be so.

Unfortunately this is the view expressed by many mirroring what the media tells us. But I thinks it's important to take into account the views of an expert in the region; former US diplomat George Kennan - I'd wager he knows much more than most on the topic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/591787-what-would-george-kennan-say-about-ukraine/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwij-qbBxK36AhVJXMAKHQm5DQYQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2bC74-G8i-2j7hpwXgjw6f

Quote from above link:

"Kennan’s critique of a divided Europe survived even the fall of the Soviet Union. Writing in 1997 at age 92, he declared that expanding NATO to the east “ would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

“Such a decision,” he went on, “may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations.”

"Were he with us today, Kennan would undoubtedly say “I told you so.”

 

[Perthsaint]

Ah, right, so it's NATO's fault Russia invaded a sovereign state?

I don't think so.

 

[TheEdge]

That strategy actually smashed the Nazi war machine and won WW2!

No, no it didn't. It helped the USSR, not Russia. The population of the USSR in 1940 was 194m, Russia today is 144m. Russia is not the USSR, and it can't use the same tools it did then.

And also lend lease and support from the Western Allies also played a massive part that is downplayed today for obvious reasons.

 

[Perthsaint]

No, no it didn't.

It did. Let's not rewrite history.

 

[yorksrob]

That strategy actually smashed the Nazi war machine and won WW2!




I don't think that's strictly true.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/does-nonmember-ukraine-have-de-facto-article-5-commitment-nato

Quote from above article:

"There are two major problems with the argument. First, Putin and other Russian leaders had long stressed that NATO membership for Ukraine would cross a red line, triggering a war. Indeed, Kremlin officials viewed even more limited Western actions, such as shipping sophisticated weaponry to Kyiv, conducting joint war games with NATO and Ukrainian forces, and sharing intelligence with Ukraine’s government, as serious provocations."



Unfortunately this is the view expressed by many mirroring what the media tells us. But I thinks it's important to take into account the views of an expert in the region; former US diplomat George Kennan - I'd wager he knows much more than most on the topic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/591787-what-would-george-kennan-say-about-ukraine/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwij-qbBxK36AhVJXMAKHQm5DQYQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2bC74-G8i-2j7hpwXgjw6f

Quote from above link:

Kennan’s critique of a divided Europe survived even the fall of the Soviet Union. Writing in 1997 at age 92, he declared that expanding NATO to the east “ would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

“Such a decision,” he went on, “may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations.”

Were he with us today, Kennan would undoubtedly say “I told you so.”

Russia has only itself to blame for its predicament. The sooner it learns this, the sooner it will move on.

It still thinks it's a superpower in a bi-polar world. It needs to get over it.

 

[najaB]

Kennan’s critique of a divided Europe survived even the fall of the Soviet Union. Writing in 1997 at age 92, he declared that expanding NATO to the east “ would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

“Such a decision,” he went on, “may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations.”

Were he with us today, Kennan would undoubtedly say “I told you so.

The problem with the "the West was wrong to expand NATO to the East" argument is that it presupposes that the eastward expansion was a push on the part of NATO. It was, rather, a pull on the part of the countries in Eastern Europe who could see that joining NATO was the only way to protect themselves from Russian interference and/or aggression towards them.

 

[TheEdge]

It did. Let's not rewrite history.

No, it didn't.

No single nation won WWII.

We didn't, the USSR didn't, the US didn't. Each player played it's part in its own way. US and UK lend lease allowed the USSR to push as hard as they did. The pressure put on the Nazis in the East allowed the Western Allies to push against an army split on multiple fronts. To say any signed nation or any single tactic won is ridiculous.

 

[najaB]

That strategy actually smashed the Nazi war machine and won WW2!

Winning a war of attrition is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

 

[Perthsaint]

No, it didn't.

No single nation won WWII.

We didn't, the USSR didn't, the US didn't. Each player played it's part in its own way. US and UK lend lease allowed the USSR to push as hard as they did. The pressure put on the Nazis in the East allowed the Western Allies to push against an army split on multiple fronts. To say any signed nation or any single tactic won is ridiculous.

The USSR won the war in Europe. That's just a fact. The western and Italian fronts were sideshows.

 

[najaB]

The USSR won the war in Europe. That's just a fact. The western and Italian fronts were sideshows.

The Allies won the war in Europe.

 

[Perthsaint]

The Allies won the war in Europe.

The Soviet Union did. At an enormous cost.

 

[najaB]

The Soviet Union did. At an enormous cost.

Ah, that explains why the Soviet Union invaded Europe from the west and drove the Germans out of France. Oh, wait...

 

[Perthsaint]

Ah, that explains why the Soviet Union invaded Europe from the west and drove the Germans out of France. Oh, wait...

Driving the Germans out of France was pretty irrelevant. Defeating the Germans in the east and occupying Berlin was relevant.

 

[TwoYellas]

Ah, right, so it's NATO's fault Russia invaded a sovereign state?

I don't think so.

I'm glad you posted this as it's indicative of the 'black and white' type of thinking that is very common when trying to explain an issue that is more complicated (sorry if that sounds condescending in any way, not intended) than is often portrayed. It is easy, for example, to be considered a *Pootin 'apologist' if you advance a view contrary to the current 'news' line.

First and foremost the responsibility lies with *Pootin for invading. In my view he is primarily responsible for a major act of aggression and should not have carried this out despite other events they regard as provocation. In this respect I take the view of Professor Noam Chomsky on the issue.

But to not understand the build up to a very very dangerous stand-off, that experts that know a little about region such as George Kennan, warned about years ago is in my view is utter madness. Kennan (as per the article I posted in my last post) warned that eastward expansion of NATO will embolden the hardliners and autocrats and sideline the democrats. Exactly the opposite to what most reasonable people anywhere would want. And this makes sense, the hardliners will say 'look they don't listen to out security concerns, sod the Gorbachev type lilly livered do-gooders we've got to toughen our stance'. And many in the population may fall for it.

. It was, rather, a pull on the part of the countries in Eastern Europe who could see that joining NATO was the only way to protect themselves from Russian interference and/or aggression towards them.

Maybe so I agree, but there is also reality. If Mexico decided they wanted to join a military alliance led by Russia because they were sick of Donny boy's wall and demands for them to pay for it, lol, what do you think will happen?

In summary, I want to live, I don't want any cities anywhere in the world to be destroyed. And the only way to ensure this is through dialogue.

*Pootin pronounced in the American way to rhyme with 'rootin tootin!’

 

[Yew]

Driving the Germans out of France was pretty irrelevant. Defeating the Germans in the east and occupying Berlin was relevant.

And why do you think that is the most relevant thing, bearing in mind that the Russians didn't even start to be involved until a 2 years into the war?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==

*Pootin pronounced in the American way to rhyme with 'rootin tootin!’

As opposed to the Canadian Poutine?

 

[Perthsaint]

I'm glad you posted this as it's indicative of the 'black and white' type of thinking that is very common when trying to explain an issue that is more complicated (sorry if that sounds condescending in any way, not intended) than is often portrayed. It is easy, for example, to be considered a *Pootin 'apologist' if you advance a view contrary to the current 'news' line.

First and foremost the responsibility lies with *Pootin for invading. In my view he is primarily responsible for a major act of aggression and should not have carried this out despite other events they regard as provocation. In this respect I take the view of Professor Noam Chomsky on the issue.

But to not understand the build up to a very very dangerous stand-off, that experts that know a little about region such as George Kennan, warned about years ago is in my view is utter madness. Kennan (as per the article I posted in my last post) warned that eastward expansion of NATO will embolden the hardliners and autocrats and sideline the democrats. Exactly the opposite to what most reasonable people anywhere would want. And this makes sense, the hardliners will say 'look they don't listen to out security concerns, sod the Gorbachev type lilly livered do-gooders we've got to toughen our stance'. And many in the population may fall for it.



Maybe so I agree, but there is also reality. If Mexico decided they wanted to join a military alliance led by Russia because they were sick of Donny boy's wall and demands for them to pay for it, lol, what do you think will happen?

In summary, I want to live, I don't want any cities to be destroyed. And the only way to ensure this is through dialogue.

*Pootin pronounced in the American way to rhyme with 'rootin tootin!’

You aren't being condescending so no need for an apology.

Some things are black and white though. Sovereignty for example. No amount of hand-wringing by the likes of Kennan will change that

 

[najaB]

Driving the Germans out of France was pretty irrelevant. Defeating the Germans in the east and occupying Berlin was relevant.

And if there was no Western Front and Germany had been able to commit 100% of their resources to fighting the USSR? And if the USSR hadn't been helped with massive amounts of weapons and material by the other Allies?

 

[Perthsaint]

And why do you think that is the most relevant thing, bearing in mind that the Russians didn't even start to be involved until a 2 years into the war?

Victory tends to be the most relevant thing in a war.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==

And if there was no Western Front and Germany had been able to commit 100% of their resources to fighting the USSR? And if the USSR hadn't been helped with massive amounts of weapons and material by the other Allies?

What if Martians had intervened?

 

[Annetts key]

Putting aside the arguments about WWII, which are off topic (and there is plenty of history to go read anyway).

The questions about Russia have to take into consideration where we would be if Putin had not become the Russian president. Do you think if there has been another, different leader, we would be in the same situation?

Do you think under different leadership, the laws that Putin changed to keep himself in power would have been changed by other leaders?

We will never know the answers unfortunately.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==

What if Martians had intervened?

I thought we agreed not to talk about Ghost Busters again?

 

[Yew]

Victory tends to be the most relevant thing in a war.

As you seem to be making a simplistic assumption that 'whoever gets to the opponents capital wins" surely the positioning of that capital in relation to your borders is the most important thing?

 

[Perthsaint]

I thought we agreed not to talk about Ghost Busters again?

Yes. Soz.

Back on topic, it seems to me that if this war isn't to be decided militarily then it needs to be decided by agreement. This begs 2 questions. Firstly, what agreement will the Ukrainians accept? Secondly, how do we ensure Russia permanently recognises Ukrainian sovereignty? I think the second of these is the trickier.

 

[TwoYellas]

There was a film about it.
There's a nuke threat thread somewhere- I'll be worried when it's pinned to the main forums like Covid!

Just a comment about this. I think threads about the most pressing threats that mankind faces are exactly what should be most prominent in main forums. But instead we get years and years of comments about how someone is upset that they saw a picture of a mask (which they're convinced is of dubious effectiveness) whilst boarding a tram in say, Bulgaria.

Says a lot about human nature I think.

 

[yorksrob]

Scondly, how do we ensure Russia permanently recognises Ukrainian sovereignty? I think the second of these is the trickier.

By arming Ukraine to the teeth and ensuring Russia is kept out at all costs.

The nostalgia for the USSR is understandable as they were a good ally in WW2 and their leadership was somewhat more reliable than the current collection of cut throats/criminals.

Nevertheless, it won't help them adjust to being a normal country with borders.

 

[GS250]

The nostalgia for the USSR is understandable as they were a good ally in WW2 and their leadership was somewhat more reliable than the current collection of cut throats/criminals.

Don't underestimate the sentiment in Russia (and other parts of Eastern Europe) that long for the 'good old days'. Not all of them want a 'liberal' Western style setup. Some of them have actually suggested Russia should shut it's borders to prevent those potential conscripts fleeing the country. Just like those good old days eh.

 

[brad465]

Victory tends to be the most relevant thing in a war.

It does, but the victor needs to be prepared for future consequences as a result. For example, Britain won the Seven Years war but then was broke somewhat, and trying to get more out of America as a result led to the War of Independence. Then France was broke after helping America out, which contributed to hardship in France and the French Revolution followed.

In this case, if Russia not only loses but descends into Revolution/civil war, we need to be prepared for all sorts of consequences that has beyond Russian borders.

 

[TwoYellas]

The nostalgia for the USSR is understandable as they were a good ally in WW2 and their leadership was somewhat more reliable than the current collection of cut throats/criminals.

I would struggle to think of a worse criminal and cut throat in human history (apart from Hitler) than Stalin and wouldn't want to remember him fondly at all. Responsible for the murder of millions of Russians in labour camps, executions and famine. As well as nearly 4 million Ukrainians in the 'The Great Famine'.

Prefer to credit the smashing of the Nazi army by the brave ordinary men and women of the Soviet Union fighting for their lives! Exactly what fascists and the far right deserve!

 

[gingerheid]

The nostalgia for the USSR is understandable as they were a good ally in WW2 and their leadership was somewhat more reliable than the current collection of cut throats/criminals.

Were they an ally? Or did we happen to have a common enemy?

It's somewhat unpalatable to say it, but where countries like Estonia got invaded by both the Nazis and the Russians the practical differences between them were really quite minor and subtle.

 

[najaB]

Were they an ally? Or did we happen to have a common enemy?

Well, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. There was a chance for the USSR and United States to have been actual allies (or at least not enemies) after WW2 but there was a breakdown of trust, and the rest is history.

 

[yorksrob]

Don't underestimate the sentiment in Russia (and other parts of Eastern Europe) that long for the 'good old days'. Not all of them want a 'liberal' Western style setup. Some of them have actually suggested Russia should shut it's borders to prevent those potential conscripts fleeing the country. Just like those good old days eh.

I would struggle to think of a worse criminal and cut throat in human history (apart from Hitler) than Stalin and wouldn't want to remember him fondly at all. Responsible for the murder of millions of Russians in labour camps, executions and famine. As well as nearly 4 million Ukrainians in the 'The Great Famine'.

Prefer to credit the smashing of the Nazi army by the brave ordinary men and women of the Soviet Union fighting for their lives! Exactly what fascists and the far right deserve!

Were they an ally? Or did we happen to have a common enemy?

It's somewhat unpalatable to say it, but where countries like Estonia got invaded by both the Nazis and the Russians the practical differences between them were really quite minor and subtle.

I was commenting more on the nostalgia from those on this forum, but I take the point that a lot of the Russians are nostalgic for Soviet times.

Yes, they were an ally at the time.

 

[brad465]

He got off lucky, perhaps because there were no top floor windows nearby at the time:

Dmitry Bulgakov: Putin fires deputy defence chief amid supply failures

Analysts have cited supply chains as a reason why Russia's invasion of Ukraine has faltered.

www.bbc.co.uk

Vladimir Putin has fired the general charged with managing the Russian military's faltering logistics operations in Ukraine.
Gen Dmitry Bulgakov, a deputy defence minister, was removed from his role on Saturday, the defence ministry said on Telegram.
The ministry said the 67-year old was "released" to transfer into a new role.
He will be replaced by Col Gen Mikhail Mizintsev, who managed Moscow's brutal siege at the port city of Mariupol.
Gen Bulgakov has run the military's logistics operations since 2008 and was responsible for keeping Russian troops supplied after their deployment to Syria in 2015.
But observers say he has become side-lined in Moscow in recent months, with many blaming him for the chaotic logistics operations that have dogged Russia's advance and seen their troops left undersupplied.
In recent months, the Kremlin has been forced to approach North Korea and Iran - two of its only remaining allies - for new artillery and drone supplies.

Pro-war figures in Russia have welcomed his dismissal and the appointment of Gen Mizintsev - who was sanctioned by the UK for his role commanding the Mariupol siege - will likely be welcomed by hardliners.
Gen Mizintsev, who was dubbed "the Butcher of Mariupol" by many Ukrainians, also led Russian forces in Syria and was accused of orchestrating a brutal bombing campaign that levelled the city of Aleppo.
The UK foreign office said he had used "reprehensible tactics" and committed "atrocities" in both the Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts when announcing sanctions against the 60-year old in March.
Mr Putin's personnel changes come amid reports that the Russian leader has taken personal charge of the war effort and has started issuing orders to generals in Ukraine himself.
US officials told CNN that the increasingly "dysfunctional command structure" in Moscow had forced Mr Putin to take a more active role in the war.
Last month, UK defence officials suggested that Mr Putin had side-lined his defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, after senior defence officials began to mock the top general's "ineffectual and out-of-touch leadership".
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that Mr Putin had denied his commanders permission to retreat from the southern city of Kherson, where Ukrainian troops are slowly advancing.
Citing US intelligence sources, the paper said that his refusal to consider a pullback had caused a decrease in morale among Russian troops in the city, who are largely cut off from their supply lines and rely on a series of pontoon bridges to be re-equipped.