Europe War in Ukraine - Thread 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he cares for Russia deeply - it regular people he doesn't give a s**t about.
I think he sees them as them disposable for the greater good, but in his mind he is doing the right thing by them.
Kind of like - you guys would rather die than be part of a global community that doesn’t espouse my personal values.
I’ve been to Russian military parades in Moscow and the people genuinely do have an independent spirit, with a natural (and weirdly dry comedic) response to US dominance. I think Putin plays on this.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

wannabejack

Club Legend
Mar 1, 2014
2,390
6,426
parallel universe
AFL Club
Port Adelaide

Ukrainian forces are actively taking advantage of the problems inside the Russian
army. The biggest problem for Russians is that the conflict between their soldiers and commanders started to grow, and since a group of Russian soldiers refused to follow the order to attack Ukrainian positions on the islands, the revolt has spread to other detachments that are operating along the river bank.

Another problem faced by the Russian assault units became their own mines. As it turned out, the minefields were prepared by completely different detachments that were redeployed to other regions long ago.
 
From the Tweet; yes it would seem like Russian's are being forced to choose. Become Latvian or leave.
I'm not big on that

I'm just putting myself in their shoes

You love Latvia, you want to stay there. But your family is in Russia, and it's a WHOLE lot more difficult getting back home to see your family on a Latvian passport, as you would a Russian passport.
 

CD Xbow

Premiership Player
Oct 1, 2014
4,355
9,169
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It’s a misnomer that Russian people are built like the rocky movies. If you go there you will find that you are actually bigger than most Russian men.
Absolutely, I felt like a giant in Moscow and I'm the size of the Wiz. Little chins, too.
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,890
36,115
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
It's going that great for Vlad he has been resorting to conscripting foreign mercenaries:



Russia has been officially notified by Nepal that they cannot conscript Nepalese nationals into the Russian invasion effort. Suspect Vlad will probably ignore this as he does like to focus on conscripting ethnic minorities as cannon fodder.
 

jatz14

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 13, 2011
11,285
15,946
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
So no lie. Just disagreement. Hell I would agree that the fear I believe they have is not a fear I have and I do not agree with said fear. Why do I believe they have it? Becouse it fits with how they act and is in line with the expressed fears of many. Which can be summed up with "do you want WWIII".
And a drawn out conflict Russia isn't winning has just as much risk as a shorter conflict Russia loses I would have thought.

If fear of ww3 drives their decision making, why give them any help at all? Let Russia have what it wants as soon as possible.

Like you, I don't like their decision making, it's just that I don't attribute that decision making to an overall agenda.

Each decision maker is thinking of themselves, not WW3. What's the most I can get away with giving before voters get upset, what's the least I can get away with doing, before I come under too much pressure.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,890
36,115
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
And a drawn out conflict Russia isn't winning has just as much risk as a shorter conflict Russia loses I would have thought.

If fear of ww3 drives their decision making, why give them any help at all? Let Russia have what it wants as soon as possible.

Like you, I don't like their decision making, it's just that I don't attribute that decision making to an overall agenda.

Each decision maker is thinking of themselves, not WW3. What's the most I can get away with giving before voters get upset, what's the least I can get away with doing, before I come under too much pressure.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

My take is this war will only ever stop if either a) Putin and his KGB era cronies are either assassinated or dethroned and sent to the Gulag (highly unlikely)

or

b) a coalition of nations threatened directly from Russian aggression (Moldova, Romania, Poland, Finland, Baltics) all officially join the fight and drive Russia out of Ukraine for good. Each of these nations have it in their interests that the new Russian empire Vlad is trying to build doesn't threaten them.


The current situation of c) Ukraine receiving arms support and holding a vastly numerically superior Russia out while waiting for Russia to exhaust itself will likely see this war go on for a long time as long as Putin is pulling the strings as it literally comes down to his ego.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2007
42,398
41,926
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
My take is this war will only ever stop if either a) Putin and his KGB era cronies are either assassinated or dethroned and sent to the Gulag (highly unlikely)

or

b) a coalition of nations threatened directly from Russian aggression (Moldova, Romania, Poland, Finland, Baltics) all officially join the fight and drive Russia out of Ukraine for good. Each of these nations have it in their interests that the new Russian empire Vlad is trying to build doesn't threaten them.


The current situation of c) Ukraine receiving arms support and holding a vastly numerically superior Russia out while waiting for Russia to exhaust itself will likely see this war go on for a long time as long as Putin is pulling the strings as it literally comes down to his ego.

I said at the start of this s**t-fight, and again months later, and again a few months ago, that the War (from the Russian perspective) was about capturing and annexing Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, in order to create a land-bridge to (previously annexed) Crimea.

The ultimate strategic goal of Russia is to maintain control over the Black Sea (where its main Naval forces are stationed), and to maintain force projection into the Mediterranean.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Russia has what they came for already. Now they've spent over a year mining the s**t out of the border and constructing a defense in depth which Ukraine simply have zero chance of actually breaching. Mazes of trenches and obstacles, with fields of interlocking fire, minefields everywhere, covered by artillery, and with air superiority over the top.

Unless Ukraine somehow obtains air superiority, they're doomed. Ukraine lack the ability to breach a defense in depth. That's what the Tanks were for, but you cant just charge tanks up a minefield, covered by fire from anti-tank weapons, and with skies patrolled by attack helicopters.

I don't like saying this. * Russia and * Putin. But that's the truth of it. I honestly can't see how Ukraine can possibly liberate the annexed Oblasts from here, without somehow obtaining dominance in the air.

If the Ukrainians can't get air superiority (and they can't), then Ukraine needs to consider option d) which is 'accept a ceasefire'.

It pains me to say it, but that's looking like the only way this conflict ends (for now).
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2009
61,890
36,115
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
I said at the start of this s**t-fight, and again months later, and again a few months ago, that the War (from the Russian perspective) was about capturing and annexing Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, in order to create a land-bridge to (previously annexed) Crimea.

The ultimate strategic goal of Russia is to maintain control over the Black Sea (where its main Naval forces are stationed), and to maintain force projection into the Mediterranean.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Russia has what they came for already. Now they've spent over a year mining the s**t out of the border and constructing a defense in depth which Ukraine simply have zero chance of actually breaching. Mazes of trenches and obstacles, with fields of interlocking fire, minefields everywhere, covered by artillery, and with air superiority over the top.

Unless Ukraine somehow obtains air superiority, they're doomed. Ukraine lack the ability to breach a defense in depth. That's what the Tanks were for, but you cant just charge tanks up a minefield, covered by fire from anti-tank weapons, and with skies patrolled by attack helicopters.

I don't like saying this. * Russia and * Putin. But that's the truth of it. I honestly can't see how Ukraine can possibly liberate the annexed Oblasts from here, without somehow obtaining dominance in the air.

If the Ukrainians can't get air superiority (and they can't), then Ukraine needs to consider option d) which is 'accept a ceasefire'.

It pains me to say it, but that's looking like the only way this conflict ends (for now).

They're far from what they have come for which is total control of Ukraine and a puppet government installed or in otherwords another Belarus.

It is interesting to note that in previous wars Russia lost around 15000 or so over two years and ended up pulling the pin (Afghanistan, 1st Checen war):



Putin has significantly weakened Russia with maintaining this invasion. He though it would be a cakewalk. In reality, the only way this war is continuing with all the setbacks is because Putin is the modern day equivalent of Hitler who will fight to the very end to maintain his ideologies. Russia's already lost - it's just a matter of how bad it gets now.
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,398
41,926
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
They're far from what they have come for which is total control of Ukraine and a puppet government installed or in otherwords another Belarus.

No, that's not what Russia want.

The Russians don't give a s**t about Ukraine, or even if Ukraine joins the EU or NATO (now), as long as they maintain Crimea, the Black Sea fleet, and control and hegemony over the Black Sea.

Russia wanted the Eastern Oblasts to create a land-bridge to Crimea. They have that. They've now ceased all major offensive operations and have spent the last year now mining the s**t out of the borders of the annexed territories and creating an extensive defense in depth.

When Ukraine was pondering joining the EU/ NATO, Russia was at risk of losing Crimea (and the Black Sea) to NATO/ the EU. That's no longer a risk.

That's what this whole conflict (starting with the Euromaidan protests) has been about. The Western Allies want Crimea and to deny the Russians control over the Black Sea (and for that control to go to NATO). Russia, don't want that and want to retain Crimea, and military hegemony over the Black Sea.

Ukraine are just the poor suckers caught in the middle.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dec 22, 2009
61,890
36,115
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
No, that's not what Russia want.

The Russians don't give a s**t about Ukraine, or even if Ukraine joins the EU or NATO (now), as long as they maintain Crimea, the Black Sea fleet, and control and hegemony over the Black Sea.

Russia wanted the Eastern Oblasts to create a land-bridge to Crimea. They have that. They've now ceased all major offensive operations and have spent the last year now mining the s**t out of the borders of the annexed territories and creating an extensive defense in depth.

When Ukraine was pondering joining the EU/ NATO, Russia was at risk of losing Crimea (and the Black Sea) to NATO/ the EU. That's no longer a risk.

That's what this whole conflict (starting with the Euromaidan protests) has been about. The Western Allies want Crimea and to deny the Russians control over the Black Sea (and for that control to go to NATO). Russia, don't want that and want to retain Crimea, and military hegemony over the Black Sea.

Ukraine are just the poor suckers caught in the middle.

It really isn't because Russia had a lease on Sevastopol until 2042 before they invaded. There was no risk of losing the Black Sea.

Once they lose this war (and that's an inevitability even if it takes years) good luck to them saying "oh we would like to return to the lease we had".

Also another thing:




Urals oil is rapidly declining. Going to end up costing more to extract than what Russiia can sell it at a discount.



When that happens, it's game over for good in Crimea for them.
 
They've now ceased all major offensive operations and have spent the last year now mining the s**t out of the borders of the annexed territories and creating an extensive defense in depth.
Didn't Russia just launch a major offensive last month losing nearly 900 people a day?
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,398
41,926
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
It really isn't because Russia had a lease on Sevastopol until 2042 before they invaded. There was no risk of losing the Black Sea.

Yes there was a risk of losing it, should Ukraine have joined NATO and the EU.

NATO countries tend not to have major Soviet military bases on them mate. That lease wouldn't have been worth the paper it was written on.

Russia (seeing the writing on the wall) first annexed Crimea, while simultaneously agitating and arming Russian separatists in the Eastern provinces of Ukraine (hoping they would do their work for them) leading to the 'Ukrainian civil war'.

When that war was clearly a stalemate, they took matters into their own hands and invaded.

Russia has what they came for. They've been in defensive operations for over a year now, not because they're 'on the back foot'. They've effectively annexed the lands they came to get, have spent a year mining and establishing defense in depth of the borders, and are happy now to sit back and let Ukranian waves crash upon those defensive positions.

They've literally proposed a cease fire on those terms (we keep the s**t we took).

I cant see a way for Ukraine to break the current stalemate. They certainly can't do it without air superiority, which they cant obtain.

The tanks didn't do much (minefields and attack helicopters and drones and man portable anti-tank missiles make tanks a little obsolete without air support).

Every day that passes the Russians dig in further, construct more bunkers, and lay more mines. I honestly can't see how the Ukrainians can punch a hole big enough for a major breakthrough.
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,890
36,115
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Yes there was a risk of losing it, should Ukraine have joined NATO and the EU.

NATO countries tend not to have major Soviet military bases on them mate. That lease wouldn't have been worth the paper it was written on.

Russia (seeing the writing on the wall) first annexed Crimea, while simultaneously agitating and arming Russian separatists in the Eastern provinces of Ukraine (hoping they would do their work for them) leading to the 'Ukrainian civil war'.

When that war was clearly a stalemate, they took matters into their own hands and invaded.

Russia has what they came for. They've been in defensive operations for over a year now, not because they're 'on the back foot'. They've effectively annexed the lands they came to get, have spent a year mining and establishing defense in depth of the borders, and are happy now to sit back and let Ukranian waves crash upon those defensive positions.

They've literally proposed a cease fire on those terms (we keep the s**t we took).

I cant see a way for Ukraine to break the current stalemate. They certainly can't do it without air superiority, which they cant obtain.

The tanks didn't do much (minefields and attack helicopters and drones and man portable anti-tank missiles make tanks a little obsolete without air support).

Every day that passes the Russians dig in further, construct more bunkers, and lay more mines. I honestly can't see how the Ukrainians can punch a hole big enough for a major breakthrough.

There was 0 risk of losing it, Ukraine had committed to a lease until 2042. This was iron cast - until Putin threw a tantrum because he could no longer have his puppets running the show and invaded firstly in 2014 then again completely in 2022.

Russia will never be able to have a secure naval base in Ukraine anymore. They literally had a guarantee of that until 2042. Now they face daily sea drone attacks, embarrassment of Ukraine taking out their submarines when Ukraine doesn't even have a navy.


Russia has less than what they had before they invaded Crimea.
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,398
41,926
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Didn't Russia just launch a major offensive last month losing nearly 900 people a day?

That's not the same thing.

You can't just sit back in defense. You still need to launch counter-offensives or else you become predictable, and you often want to counterpunch, so your opponent can't just move his troops around on his terms freely.

If your opponent hits you in the Southern lines, you hit him back in the North. He then has to redeploy forces North to stop you encircling his assaulting forces (and that redeployment weakens his assault in the South).

There will still be Russian offensives to keep the Ukrainians on their toes, and to destroy key Ukranian assets (tanks, command and control and artillery).

But largely the Russians are happy for the Ukrainians to bleed out while they sit back in defense in depth and wait.
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,398
41,926
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
There was 0 risk of losing it, Ukraine had committed to a lease until 2042.

No, it doesn't matter.

NATO are not going to agree to stationing Soviet troops in NATO allied country.

A lease is a bit of paper. Ukraine join NATO, inform Russia the lease is null and void, and give them a deadline to leave Crimea.

Putin is then forced to either invade/ attack a NATO country (triggering WW3, and a full-scale military response from NATO) or leave.
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,890
36,115
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
No, it doesn't matter.

NATO are not going to agree to stationing Soviet troops in NATO allied country.

A lease is a bit of paper. Ukraine join NATO, inform Russia the lease is null and void, and give them a deadline to leave Crimea.

Putin is then forced to either invade/ attack a NATO country (triggering WW3, and a full-scale military response from NATO) or leave.

Ukraine were not in NATO nor had any intention of joining NATO until they were attacked. This doesn't matter anyway, Germany had Russian troops stationed in it as a NATO member and the lease precedes any NATO membership.

The facts are Russia had unfettered access to the Black Sea at Sevastopol guaranteed until 2042 before they attacked Ukraine.

This lease will not be resumed once the war is over. Russia's naval base is now under constant attack from naval & air drones plus long range cruise missiles that Ukraine did not have until they were attacked. This is never going to change.
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,398
41,926
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Ukraine were not in NATO nor had any intention of joining NATO until they were attacked.

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia.

You're spreading misinformation. See the above link for why that is absolutely not true.

Germany had Russian troops stationed in it as a NATO member

German reunification - Wikipedia

Not after German reunification they didn't. The Russians left not long after the wall came down.

The facts are Russia had unfettered access to the Black Sea.

No they didn't, and it was looking shaky if they would retain the access, they actually had should Ukraine join the EU and NATO.

They were forced to literally invade and annex Crimea (and now the entire Eastern portion of Ukraine) to ensure they kept unfettered access to the Black Sea, a peninsula literally sought after by every single empire since antiquity:

The Black Sea ports of Crimea provide quick access to the Eastern Mediterranean, Balkans and Middle East. Historically, possession of the southern coast of Crimea was sought after by most empires of the greater region since antiquity (Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Russian, British and French, Nazi German, Soviet).[51]

The nearby Dnieper River is a major waterway and transportation route that crosses the European continent from north to south and ultimately links the Black Sea with the Baltic Sea, of strategic importance since the historical trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks. The Black Sea serves as an economic thoroughfare connecting the Caucasus region and the Caspian Sea to central and Eastern Europe.

Crimea - Wikipedia

Dude, read the following link and check out the size of Russias Black Sea fleet (based in Crimea).

Black Sea Fleet - Wikipedia

There is literally nothing else in Ukraine that Russia wants or need. They have what they came for.
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,890
36,115
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
German reunification - Wikipedia

Not after German reunification they didn't. The Russians left not long after the wall came down.

Yes they did. They had troops stationed in Germany until 1994.



No they didn't, and it was looking shaky if they would retain the access, they actually had should Ukraine join the EU and NATO.

They were forced to literally invade and annex Crimea (and now the entire Eastern portion of Ukraine) to ensure they kept unfettered access to the Black Sea, a peninsula literally sought after by every single empire since antiquity:



Crimea - Wikipedia

Dude, read the following link and check out the size of Russias Black Sea fleet (based in Crimea).

Black Sea Fleet - Wikipedia

There is literally nothing else in Ukraine that Russia wants or need. They have what they came for.

This is misinformation. Ukraine at no stage before they were attacked by Russia were going to not honor the Sevastopol naval lease.


Russia now have lost control over the Black Sea and Sevastopol naval base is not secure at all. Not what the Russians were aiming for at all.
 

wannabejack

Club Legend
Mar 1, 2014
2,390
6,426
parallel universe
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Yes there was a risk of losing it, should Ukraine have joined NATO and the EU.

NATO countries tend not to have major Soviet military bases on them mate. That lease wouldn't have been worth the paper it was written on.

Russia (seeing the writing on the wall) first annexed Crimea, while simultaneously agitating and arming Russian separatists in the Eastern provinces of Ukraine (hoping they would do their work for them) leading to the 'Ukrainian civil war'.

When that war was clearly a stalemate, they took matters into their own hands and invaded.

Russia has what they came for. They've been in defensive operations for over a year now, not because they're 'on the back foot'. They've effectively annexed the lands they came to get, have spent a year mining and establishing defense in depth of the borders, and are happy now to sit back and let Ukranian waves crash upon those defensive positions.

They've literally proposed a cease fire on those terms (we keep the s**t we took).

I cant see a way for Ukraine to break the current stalemate. They certainly can't do it without air superiority, which they cant obtain.

The tanks didn't do much (minefields and attack helicopters and drones and man portable anti-tank missiles make tanks a little obsolete without air support).

Every day that passes the Russians dig in further, construct more bunkers, and lay more mines. I honestly can't see how the Ukrainians can punch a hole big enough for a major breakthrough.

From your post :They've literally proposed a cease fire on those terms (we keep the s**t we took).
From the article : a static, positional form of warfare would greatly benefit Russia, allowing it to rebuild its military power before eventually threatening Ukraine’s armed forces and the state itself.
Russia has a history of breaking agreements. They will want more s**t.

From your post : I can't see a way for Ukraine to break the current stalemate.
From the article : Zaluzhny sees technology as the key to regaining the battlefield initiative and ultimately defeating Russia’s invasion.

From the article
The present dominance of defensive tactics on the battlefield works in Russia’s favor, as Ukraine cannot afford to let the conflict freeze along the current front lines. As Zaluzhny acknowledges, a static, positional form of warfare would greatly benefit Russia, allowing it to rebuild its military power before eventually threatening Ukraine’s armed forces and the state itself. Ukrainian commanders have far more limited resources at their disposal, and must aim to maintain momentum as they seek to liberate around 20 percent of the country and free millions of citizens from Russian occupation.

Zaluzhny sees technology as the key to regaining the battlefield initiative and ultimately defeating Russia’s invasion. In a war that has already witnessed the unprecedented use of everything from naval drones to cyber attacks, he argues that victory will go to the side best able to harness the potential of existing and new defense sector technologies. “The simple fact is that we see everything the enemy is doing and they see everything we are doing,” Zaluzhny writes. “In order for us to break this deadlock we need something new, like the gunpowder which the Chinese invented and which we are still using to kill each other.”

Zaluzhny’s blueprint for future victory over Russia has appeared at a relatively early stage in the conflict. A century ago during World War I, which is widely perceived as a similarly deadlocked conflict marked by the ascendancy of defensive tactics, new technologies did not begin to create openings for offensive operations until the third or fourth year of the war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back