Europe War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here:

Europe - Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/war-in-ukraine-thread-4-thread-rules-updated.1376293/page-146

www.bigfooty.com

If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or starts to derail the thread, report the post to us and we'll move it over there.

Seeing as multiple people seem to have forgotten, abuse is against the rules of BF. Continuous, page long attacks directed at a single poster in this thread will result in threadbans for a week from this point; doing so again once you have returned will make the bans permanent and will be escalated to infractions.

This thread still has misinformation rules, and occasionally you will be asked to demonstrate a claim you have made by moderation. If you cannot, you will be offered the opportunity to amend the post to reflect that it's opinion, to remove the post, or you will be threadbanned and infracted for sharing misinformation.

Addendum: from this point, use of any variant of the word 'orc' to describe combatants, politicians or russians in general will be deleted and the poster will receive a warning. If the behaviour continues, it will be escalated. Consider this fair warning.

Finally: If I see the word Nazi or Hitler being flung around, there had better have a good faith basis as to how it's applicable to the Russian invasion - as in, video/photographic evidence of POW camps designed to remove another ethnic group - or to the current Ukrainian army. If this does not occur, you will be threadbanned for posting off topic

This is a sensitive area, and I understand that this makes for fairly incensed conversation sometimes. This does not mean the rules do not apply, whether to a poster positing a Pro-Ukraine stance or a poster positing an alternative view.

Behave, people.

 

[wannabejack]

russia’s draft treaty in 2022 spelt out the unacceptable costs of what would have amounted to Ukraine’s capitulation.

Some of those costs.

• Ukrainian army to be drastically reduced to a skeleton force of just fifty thousand personnel.
• Restrictions on the quantity of armour Ukraine could possess.
• The types of missiles the country could develop.
  russia, say hello to “Peklo”.

Hopefully it's the proper use of irony

 

[Bloods86]

I suspect sometimes there's a 4th option - some people just get off on being anti. They don't believe (or perhaps even understand) a word of the arguments they are presenting, but simply oppose anything that they enjoy opposing.
If NATO sang the praises of VHS, for example, these folks would instantly run out and buy a Betamax. Purely contrarian, oblivious to or sociopathically disregarding the suffering that happens outside their own periphery. It's an illness.

I think that kind of fits with 2 or 3 though. The sources and/or funding of the sources they use have conditioned them into an "America/NATO bad" narrative, that everything has to fit within that.

In this case, I think there's some genuine socialist tendencies, they just have absolutely no clue on how this could feasibly occur, and in the meantime, they've been heavily influenced by this "America/NATO bad" shortcut, that they are far more charitable to Russia over this conflict, and geopolitically in general, than they would ever be to those supporting Ukraine. And so they've concocted or been fed a story on how the true enemy is capitalism (it's an enemy of sorts, but not the main one), with the feasible outcome of their positions just ending up with Russia getting its way quicker and no revolution to follow.

 

[IlovethePies]

NATO starts bombing Russian military infrastructure in Ukraine?

What could possibly go wrong when one nuclear armed power begins bombing the military assets of another nuclear power?

What could possibly go wrong when NATO aircraft are intercepted and destroyed by Russian aircraft /antiaircraft missiles or vice verca, and the debris falls randomly over Ukrainian territory, or inaccurate missile strikes miss their targets?

 

[IlovethePies]

russia’s draft treaty in 2022 spelt out the unacceptable costs of what would have amounted to Ukraine’s capitulation.

Some of those costs.

• Ukrainian army to be drastically reduced to a skeleton force of just fifty thousand personnel.
• Restrictions on the quantity of armour Ukraine could possess.
• The types of missiles the country could develop.
  russia, say hello to “Peklo”.

View attachment 2183296
Hopefully it's the proper use of irony

There was never going to not be a war.

There was always going to be a war because NATO was always going to provoke it, and the politically bankrupt Putin regime had no answer but to allow itself to be provoked, and invade Ukraine.

This allowed the Western imperialists to create their propaganda narrative of "unprovoked war" that only started because Putin woke up one day and decided to launch a military invasion of Ukraine.

This war is about who controls the vast strategic natural resources of Russia, worth trillions and trillions of dollars.

 

[jatz14]

I think that kind of fits with 2 or 3 though. The sources and/or funding of the sources they use have conditioned them into an "America/NATO bad" narrative, that everything has to fit within that.

In this case, I think there's some genuine socialist tendencies, they just have absolutely no clue on how this could feasibly occur, and in the meantime, they've been heavily influenced by this "America/NATO bad" shortcut, that they are far more charitable to Russia over this conflict, and geopolitically in general, than they would ever be to those supporting Ukraine. And so they've concocted or been fed a story on how the true enemy is capitalism (it's an enemy of sorts, but not the main one), with the feasible outcome of their positions just ending up with Russia getting its way quicker and no revolution to follow.

This is similar to the MSM bad, therefore, any alternative is better, narrative.

The number of arguments I have had that the fact your source of information isn't MSM, doesn't mean you are accessing the truth.

Yes, MSM is bad, it runs with narratives, it wants controversy, it ignores issues and perspectives.

But everything bad about it is worse in the alternatives. They are smaller, it's harder to know who is behind them, it's easier to manipulate them, they have less resources for checking, they often aren't just pushing a particular narrative, they were created specifically for that narrative. And social media, you can just flood it with whatever rubbish you want, knowing it will just get copied and repeated and bounce around in what is mostly a fact check free echo chamber.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

There was never going to not be a war.

There was always going to be a war because NATO was always going to provoke it, and the politically bankrupt Putin regime had no answer but to allow itself to be provoked, and invade Ukraine.

This war is about who controls the vast strategic natural resources of Russia, worth trillions and trillions of dollars.

There was always going to be a war because the imperialists in Russia always wanted Ukraine.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mobbs]

I think that kind of fits with 2 or 3 though. The sources and/or funding of the sources they use have conditioned them into an "America/NATO bad" narrative, that everything has to fit within that.

In this case, I think there's some genuine socialist tendencies, they just have absolutely no clue on how this could feasibly occur, and in the meantime, they've been heavily influenced by this "America/NATO bad" shortcut, that they are far more charitable to Russia over this conflict, and geopolitically in general, than they would ever be to those supporting Ukraine. And so they've concocted or been fed a story on how the true enemy is capitalism (it's an enemy of sorts, but not the main one), with the feasible outcome of their positions just ending up with Russia getting its way quicker and no revolution to follow.

I kinda yes and kinda no on this, because I think it's entirely possible that someone could want Ukraine to be eradicated, without any of their sources of information also wanting this - even without having any sources of information at all. All they hear is that an entire people are being persecuted, and because the average Joe thinks persecution of an entire people is wrong, they are so sociopathically contrarian that their mental state forces them to take the position that the persecution of an entire people is right. Then of course to avoid getting the shit kicked out of them, or incarcerated, every time they open their mouths, that's when it's time to go googling for whatever arguments they can pose to express their view, while concealing the driving force behind them holding it.

Lot of word salad but hopefully you get my drift!

 

[Chief]

^ Keep rolling the dice then.
Keep betting that Putin won't react to the next red line the US and NATO cross.

I'm not making any bets. I have no say in this matter.

But I have no doubt that Putin will not fire nuclear missiles.

 

[IlovethePies]

I kinda yes and kinda no on this, because I think it's entirely possible that someone could want Ukraine to be eradicated, without any of their sources of information also wanting this - even without having any sources of information at all. All they hear is that an entire people are being persecuted, and because the average Joe thinks persecution of an entire people is wrong, they are so sociopathically contrarian that their mental state forces them to take the position that the persecution of an entire people is right. Then of course to avoid getting the shit kicked out of them, or incarcerated, every time they open their mouths, that's when it's time to go googling for whatever arguments they can pose to express their view, while concealing the driving force behind them holding it.

Lot of word salad but hopefully you get my drift!

Laughable, when you are one of the main purveyors of a desire for intensified war

 

[Chief]

a desire for intensified war

Yeah. Right.

 

[Mobbs]

Yeah. Right.

Apparently last night was also the first time I'd "acknowledged" there were Russians who were anti-war.

Makes me wonder if they can even point out where Ukraine is on their flat earth map.

 

[IlovethePies]

Apparently last night was also the first time I'd "acknowledged" there were Russians who were anti-war.

Makes me wonder if they can even point out where Ukraine is on their flat earth map.

I dont prioritise your posts as reading material, and haven't been following your history of posting. It's definitely the first record I have of your acknowledgement of mass anti-war sentiment in Russia. - which makes all the more inexplicable your frequently expressed desire for an escalation of the war, which can only result in the extension of suffering, in both the Ukraine and in Russia.

Instead, I am for the ending of the war by the Russian and Ukrainian workers in unity, to be established through the creation of an international revolutionary socialist movement, which will seize poltiical power and overthrow both Putin and Zelensky. I base myself on opposition to war. In contrast, you base yourself on arguing for an escalation of war.

 

[Mobbs]

... the Ukraine ...

Zidane98 the Internet Research Agency is still well-funded!

 

[IlovethePies]

Zidane98 the Internet Research Agency is still well-funded!

...and that's your answer.

Turn to one of your sidekicks for moral support.

 

[wannabejack]

... the Ukraine and in the Russia...

You left a word out.

 

[Mobbs]

You left a word out.

Appreciate the help wannabethejack

 

[IlovethePies]

Appreciate the help wannabethejack

yeah, you need whatever you can get to provide a diversion.

 

[Mobbs]

Well with the ****wits dealt with, back to news as it appears. Front line attacks from missiles that can be countered by anti-aircraft drones, have decreased. This guy suggests its because their recon drones have been getting shut down more regularly. Need to deploy the same tech around the civilian cities as well, where the terrorism is closer to the civilians. The last line, beats me what he's getting at!

From my remote points of reception of radio signals on the fronts, I can see how much the number of reconnaissance UAVs in the air has decreased.

Fewer scouts= fewer Lancets= fewer accurate strikes by Iskanders on the fronts and the front-line zone.

Thanks to those who developed the strategy and tactics of using anti-aircraft drones and thanks to those who implemented it and are currently using it.

Does the enemy know about our anti-aircraft drones? Knows literally from the first weeks of their use. From that moment, someone's anti-aircraft drone attacked, flew by and got into the camera of the UAV.

Why does the enemy not repeat our experience against our x UAV? There are reasons )))

From an EW R&D channel - link & location withheld for obvious reasons. Posted today.

 

[Andre]

As usual, you and the other posters like you get caught up in their own pathetic self contradictions.

1) Your argument has always been that Putin is a fascist imperialist whose only goal is empire expansion. Why then is the Russian airforce only structured for defence?

2) You and your like minded friends here have always maintained that NATO never threatened Russia, that its expansion towards Russia never posed any threat to Russia, that NATO stands for democracy and freedom, blah, blah.

Why then is Russia's airforce structured for defence against NATO?

For someone who loves Russia you don't have much grasp of how they have always fought wars. Russia is a land power who always has known they'd be battling on/near their 'home turf'. The strength of the Russia military (forget any moral imperatives here), has been the ability to disregard losses and throw more (often poorly trained) troops into battle. Airforces (and navies) are the higher tech arms of militaries, with higher skilled members. You can train someone (poorly) in a couple of weeks, to point a rifle, follow basic orders and live in a ditch. With rifle and other equipment cheap to produce. It takes years to train skilled aviators (and maintainers), who are in very expensive equipment. So Russia(/USSR) have been from WWII onwards an army (with heavy reliance on artillery), with smaller other military branches. Which is why I said mostly for defense. It of course can attack, but it's military has always been primacy of the ground forces, where as the Gulf War (the original one), highlighted NATO forces are much more a combined arms force and rely on air superiority (with ideally air supremacy in fairly short order).

Going back to the Cold War, the whole NATO plan (AirLand battle) was based on Russia would be flooding men and tanks/IFV's across the plains of Europe, with NATO using aircraft (A-10) and helicopters (Apaches etc.) to try and destroy enough of them before the numerically inferior NATO forces were forced to engage. Russia's airforce was there to try and minimise the damage NATO airforces/helicopters would cause. The reason the US started their Stealth push, was wargames had them getting beaten in a conventional war, from massive losses of Aircraft, then leaving them vunerable to Soviet ground forces.

NATO has never been a threat to Russia, it's rationale hasn't changed since it's founding, except to substitute protecting European and North American countries from being invaded by the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact, to being invaded by Russia. What is a threat to Russia, is NATO provides the umbrella for nations previously in the Soviet/Russian 'sphere of influence' to join the European Union and adopt democracy, doing what is best for them and their people, rather than the political machinations of whoever is in the Kremlin (whether their official title is Czar, Secretary or President). Most threatening to Russia though, of their own people looking at countries on their border and seeing those countries people free to vote (and the vote count), protest (without being killed or conscripted), be LGBT or not want kids. So yes, I suppose, NATO is an indirect threat to Putin, but not how you try to paint it.

 

[wannabejack]

Appreciate the help wannabethejack

When they use “the Ukraine” and “Kiev” it shows where their allegiance lies.

 

[IlovethePies]

Well with the ****wits dealt with,

 

[Mobbs]

Belarus wants Oreshnik, pushing mid-range capability up closer against NATO member nations.

https://www.belarus.by/en/government/events/lukashenko-asks-putin-to-deploy-oreshnik-missile-systems-in-belarus_i_0000181672.html

MINSK, 6 December (BelTA) – Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko has approached President of Russia Vladimir Putin with a request to deploy Russia’s latest missile systems Oreshnik in Belarus. The relevant proposal was put forward at a session of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Belarus and Russia in Minsk on 6 December, BelTA has learned.

According to the president, such a decision would enhance the defense of the Union State of Belarus and Russia in the face of the growing threat from the West and the defense of the Belarusian territory.

Btw there was also a move at one point, in a smaller Siberian Centre, to name a new sports arena after the Oreshnik missile. The intention was later denied by the local government, though it had been tabled as a suggestion. Thought it was amusing but not relevant so didn't save the link.

 

[IlovethePies]

When they use “the Ukraine” and “Kiev” it shows where their allegiance lies.

hah, and your sidekick accused me of cherry picking words.

 

[Mobbs]

Related:

Protests in Sakartvelo/Georgia enters what, 9th? 10th? day. Security forces continue to disperse the crowds, the crowds continue to reform. There's definitely been violence on both sides. A lot of different stories appear but I haven't grabbed any to share specifically. There's many reports of undue force used by the security forces including beatings up to torture of those arrested - though I want more verification because it can be said it's another Brateevo. But this one got my attention, where people close to Georgian Dream are identified going pretty much mafia on the protestors.

Incident on the embankment

What happened: According to eyewitnesses, a black armored SUV drove up to the protesters, its passengers began to insult them, and a scuffle began. One of the men was armed with a pistol.

Who provoked the conflict: The identity of one of the men was quickly established. It turned out to be David (Datuna) Mikadze . Formula TV calls him a "businessman close to the Georgian Dream" , Mtavari Arkhi - a "criminal authority" , and TV Pirveli - a "close friend and member of the Otar Partskhaladze group" (former chief prosecutor of the country Otar Partskhaladze-Romanov, a figure on the American "blacklist" - the US imposed sanctions against him for collaborating with the Russian FSB).

Some media initially called the man with the weapon "a native of the North Caucasus," but the footage shows that he speaks Georgian. Later, information emerged that he was a wrestler from the Pankisi Gorge. Presumably, he is Mikadze's personal bodyguard.

[SOVA Georgia TG]
(there's a video of the incident at the link)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And in Syria, all I can really say is that the rebels are having a surprisingly easy run thus far. Doubt it will last forever, but it's startling. All that territory reliant on Russian assurances getting over-run - and Russia just evacuates? I would have expected they'd threaten nukes, at the very least! Maybe over there there's no western alliance to wimp out at the threat.

 

[Mobbs]

When they use “the Ukraine” and “Kiev” it shows where their allegiance lies.

I forgive the "Kiev" - most of us were raised spelling it that way, and its all transliterated anyway so I'm not too fussed. Like spelling "Net" and "Nyet", its like, whatever.

But "the Ukraine" ... that has to be taught.