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.

 

[Bloods86]

I think some people just realise Putin is a liar and expansionist so all this other crap is just that. Had Putin only invaded the Donbas region then I could understand some arguments. He didn’t though, he marched on Kiev and thankfully was defeated.

Not forgetting that Putin had invaded Ukraine in 2014, and continued to lie about it since.

 

[Bloods86]

Of course there are, but in the past (speaking since the fall of the USSR), NATO itself has self-imposed and mutually agreed to limitations on how much they can be militarised.

For Russia, the Polish bases were a crossing of the red line and the ambition to install bases in Ukraine is even more so.

If you lived in Moscow, how close would be too close for a nuke capable missile facility?

Moscow isn't the only locale in Russia, you know.

Why does Putin put his people closer to the sinister threat of NATO by expanding Russia's borders in their direction?

He's full of it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You mean in response to "this generous and realistic "peace plan" Zelensky brought with him to Davos"?



LOL.

Why does your avatar remind me of this gif?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s4T64Kx2p0fhm/giphy.jpg

It’s generous as it doesn’t demand putins testicles in a vice

 

[Crankyhawk]

Are certain posters capable of synthesising information and then putting into a post that doesn’t bore the shite out of people. FFS think for yourself for once and stop posting reams of total crap that you’re either too lazy to read or are too stupid to interpret.

The teams are a strategy to appear to overwhelm with references- some legit some biased..

 

[Rayzorwire]

As usual, you post utter nonsense.

So just come right out and say it.

Wikileaks and the OCSE are lying and are 'pro-Putin?'

That's your position today? After claiming the day before that the Estonian military, the ISW, the BBC and The Times were all lying and are 'Pro-Putin?'

I'll leave people to judge for themselves whether that's a reasonable position.

Russian is freely spoken in Ukraine to this day - as is many other minority languages. These languages are not banned.

None of the sources I posted or anything I wrote claimed Russian was banned from being spoken - in private settings or say on the street in conversation.

That would have been kinda tough to enforce, even for the SBU...

What I did post were quotes from Western sources demonstrating that to reach the 'civilised' standards of the EU and submit themselves to join, Ukraine had to wind back ALL its "divisive" (Europe's words - not mine) language law reforms and is now pledged to operate in the future with laws quite similar to what it started with pre-Maidan, except even more inclusive and less divisive.

Ironic much?

Bitterly so, IMO.

 

[Chief]

Of course there are, but in the past (speaking since the fall of the USSR), NATO itself has self-imposed and mutually agreed to limitations on how much they can be militarised.

For Russia, the Polish bases were a crossing of the red line and the ambition to install bases in Ukraine is even more so.

If you lived in Moscow, how close would be too close for a nuke capable missile facility?

So it wasn't until they decided they wanted Black Sea access and a lot of arable land that they invaded Ukraine... ?

Yeah that NATO threat bro.

Multiple countries already but Ukraine SAYS that they MIGHT join and that's just TOO FAR!

 

[Rayzorwire]

Of all the ridiculous pro Russian propaganda, this has got to be up there.


The US is providing ammunition, defensive weapons, training and logistical support to Ukraine. That is a significant contribution towards the defense of Ukraine.

Sure is, but if I was a Ukranian, I'd probably prefer something like the effort they'd make to defend Israel.

How about you?

Why does the UK and US' pledge to defend Israel directly involve their warships and planes, while their pledge to Ukraine only involves a hands-off, we ain't getting directly involved approach?

Are Ukrainians less important than Israeli's? Don't deserve as much help?

What's the angle here? I'm genuinely asking in good faith for your perspective.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Netanyahu is a war criminal. Him and his mates should be hung.
I don’t have much good to say about Biden either.

Agreed mate.

Be nice if the international community could stand up to them more effectively.

And FWIW, Putin is being an amoral genocide cheerleader on this issue too, IMO.

Because of Russian interests, he's done infinitely less than he could have to reign in Netanyahu and support the Palestinians.

As it is, it in no way suits his interests to do either thing, so he's not going to.

Acting almost entirely in self interest, with far less regard for morality, like practically all leaders do and always have done.

 

[Baldur]

It’s generous as it doesn’t demand putins testicles in a vice

Putin claims to be defending christian values, so a fitting punishment for such a martyr would be.

Give me the head of Valdimir Putin on a platter.

 

[mcnulty]

Sure is, but if I was a Ukranian, I'd probably prefer something like the effort they'd make to defend Israel.

How about you?

Why does the UK and US' pledge to defend Israel directly involve their warships and planes, while their pledge to Ukraine only involves a hands-off, we ain't getting directly involved approach?

Are Ukrainians less important than Israeli's? Don't deserve as much help?

What's the angle here? I'm genuinely asking in good faith for your perspective.

There are UK and US troops in Gaza? Or are you referring to Houthis taking indiscriminate potshots and international shipping lanes? If so, Wtf did you think would happen?

 

[mcnulty]

Because of Russian interests, he's done infinitely less than he could have to reign in Netanyahu and support the Palestinians.

What could he possibly have done to “reign in Netanyahu?”

 

[Rayzorwire]

You quote nice articles.

Quote the one talking about the French military industrial complex going into a war footing.

Quote the one about the Baltic states putting minefields along their whole Russian border.

Quote Germany injecting massive amounts of new funds into its military after years of being comfortable with their military decline.

Like I said before I posted the Estonian intelligence paper, compare and contrast it to what you read from journalists and the social media sphere.

NATO military intelligence itself is saying the NATO countries are leaving themselves unacceptably vulnerable and they will remain that way unless they start rapidly changing things.

Me, I prefer to rely on things like primary documents from expert sources. If you prefer journalism as a better source of truth, who am I to tell you otherwise?

For decades, Finland decided the best way to stay out of a conflict with the USSR was to stay out of NATO. But now, in the days of imperial Russia, it couldn't join NATO fast enough. Why? Why is Finlands assessment that being neutral is now less safe than being in Nato?

It's a sad thing.

Finland was always an invaluable mediator and partner for de-escalation throughout the Cold War.

They've changed their policy because that's what their government wanted. Russia the modern state is infinitely less threatening to Finland than the USSR was.

Ponder that.

 

[Sir_Loin]

What could he possibly have done to “reign in Netanyahu?”

Take video of him doing naughty things last time he was in Moscow and funnel many millions of dollars through his sham property deals I guess. Or maybe he was too smart to fall for such devices.

 

[Rayzorwire]

If it ever got to article 5 under the NATO treaty Russia would be wiped off the face of the earth in a conventional war. They do not have the capability to compete against NATO in any domain.

It would be a horrible thing to happen but Russia wouldn’t have a chance in hell.

So you too are saying that Kagan - the founder and head of the Institute for the Study of War - spends two lengthy essays 'lying' and is completely wrong in his assessment of Russia's capacities?

You consider him pro-Putin?

Just as a very brief recap (though I'm sure you read every word of it):

The High Price of Losing Ukraine: Part 1 — Military-Strategic & Financial Implications of Russian Victory

The United States has a much higher stake in Russia's war on Ukraine than most people think. A Russian conquest of all of Ukraine is by no means impossible if the United States cuts off all military assistance and Europe follows suit. Such an outcome would bring a battered but triumphant Russian...

www.understandingwar.org

NATO would be unable to defend against such an attack with the forces currently in Europe. The United States would need to move large numbers of American soldiers to the entire eastern NATO border from the Baltic to the Black Sea to deter Russian adventurism and be prepared to defeat a Russian attack. The United States would also need to commit a significant proportion of its fleet of stealth aircraft permanently to Europe. NATO defense strategy relies on air superiority not merely to protect NATO troops from enemy attack but also to use air power to offset smaller NATO ground forces and limited stocks of NATO artillery. The United States would have to keep large numbers of stealth aircraft available in Europe to penetrate and destroy Russian air defense systems—and keep the Russians from re-establishing effective air defense—so that non-stealthy aircraft and cruise missiles can reach their targets. The requirement to commit a significant stealth aircraft fleet to Europe could badly degrade America’s ability to respond effectively to Chinese aggression against Taiwan since all Taiwan scenarios rely heavily on the same stealth aircraft that would be needed to defend Europe.


What part of that is hard to understand and agrees with your above assessment?

Do you consider yourself a greater expert on Russia and NATO's respective military capacities than the founder and head of the Institute for the Study of War?

Coz it certainly reads that way...

 

[Sir_Loin]

So you too are saying that Kagan - the founder and head of the Institute for the Study of War - spends two lengthy essays 'lying' and is completely wrong in his assessment of Russia's capacities?

You consider him pro-Putin?

Just as a very brief recap (though I'm sure you read every word of it):

The High Price of Losing Ukraine: Part 1 — Military-Strategic & Financial Implications of Russian Victory

The United States has a much higher stake in Russia's war on Ukraine than most people think. A Russian conquest of all of Ukraine is by no means impossible if the United States cuts off all military assistance and Europe follows suit. Such an outcome would bring a battered but triumphant Russian...

www.understandingwar.org

NATO would be unable to defend against such an attack with the forces currently in Europe. The United States would need to move large numbers of American soldiers to the entire eastern NATO border from the Baltic to the Black Sea to deter Russian adventurism and be prepared to defeat a Russian attack. The United States would also need to commit a significant proportion of its fleet of stealth aircraft permanently to Europe. NATO defense strategy relies on air superiority not merely to protect NATO troops from enemy attack but also to use air power to offset smaller NATO ground forces and limited stocks of NATO artillery. The United States would have to keep large numbers of stealth aircraft available in Europe to penetrate and destroy Russian air defense systems—and keep the Russians from re-establishing effective air defense—so that non-stealthy aircraft and cruise missiles can reach their targets. The requirement to commit a significant stealth aircraft fleet to Europe could badly degrade America’s ability to respond effectively to Chinese aggression against Taiwan since all Taiwan scenarios rely heavily on the same stealth aircraft that would be needed to defend Europe.


What part of that is hard to understand and agrees with your above assessment?

Do you consider yourself a greater expert on Russia and NATO's respective military capacities than the founder and head of the Institute for the Study of War?

Coz it certainly reads that way...

You know the USA is part of NATO right? Don’t tell me in all your research and referencing you missed that bit?

 

[Rayzorwire]

"The western military complex is profiting majorly from this conflict."

They're not?

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/wars-raise-profit-outlook-us-defense-industry-2024-2023-12-18/

[next breath]

"Also, the west are not replenishing their stocks of weapons and ammo."

Huh?

Pretty ordinary debating tactic, IMO, FWIW - quoting someone but not actually quoting them, so they have no idea you're responding to what they wrote...

Anyway, as the Estonian intelligence paper points out (I made no comments myself, simply quoted a NATO member), they are replenishing, just nowhere near fast enough and they're heavily reliant on the US to do so because their own productive capacity is currently at nowhere near the scale now required.

 

[Rayzorwire]

So it wasn't until they decided they wanted Black Sea access and a lot of arable land that they invaded Ukraine... ?

Russia didn't suddenly decide out of the blue they wanted a warm water port on the Black Sea, it's been a fundamental core of their military and economic policy for centuries and they've pursued it with nothing short of fanatical zeal for centuries.

Obviously, when Kruschev gifted Ukraine Crimea he didn't foresee in his wildest dreams that two countries as close as Russia and Ukraine would ever be anything resembling enemies, so who administered the region mattered very little.

Yeah that NATO threat bro.

Multiple countries already but Ukraine SAYS that they MIGHT join and that's just TOO FAR!

You do get that it's irrelevant whether you or I regard NATO as a threat, don't you?

It's also largely irrelevant whether Putin does.

The Russian people, as expressed on every level from political to artistic, have felt increasingly threatened over the last decades by NATO missiles aimed at them creeping always closer.

Any Russian leader - Putin our whoever deposes him tomorrow in the West's dreams - would have to go against the overwhelming will of the Russian people to allow NATO bases in Ukraine even closer to Russia's borders and further encircling them.

The Russian people don't want NATO missiles any closer than they already are. It's a political reality the current and any future Russian leaders have to accept.

Now, whether or not the Russian people have been fed this idea of NATO being a hostile entity through well crafted state propaganda is another matter entirely - and I suspect I know what your feelings would be on that.

The fact is though, they do feel that way.

 

[Rayzorwire]

There are UK and US troops in Gaza?

There's quite a lot of conjecture about that.

At this stage, only vaguely described 'advisors' and such is the official word from the US and I've seen nothing I'd regard as concrete evidence otherwise.

Or are you referring to Houthis taking indiscriminate potshots and international shipping lanes? If so, Wtf did you think would happen?

The Houthi's aren't being indiscriminate at all, they're targeting any ship with the slightest 0.1% ownership, family tie to ownership, or any ship which has helped Israel in any way. If the media tells you otherwise, it's simply not digging deep enough or executing a little sin of omission (in one case it's the fact that one part owner has a Jewish wife, for example).

A fair portion of the world got on the diplomatic blower and arranged safe passage with the Houthi's quickly and quietly. No shortage of Euro countries led by the Greek shipping tycoons are now doing the exact same thing, because it's a way smarter play than thinking the US can keep manufacturing and firing million dollar missiles at $2K drones indefinitely.

And yes, I did expect the US to respond in the way it did.

 

[Sir_Loin]

They're not?

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/wars-raise-profit-outlook-us-defense-industry-2024-2023-12-18/

Pretty ordinary debating tactic, IMO, FWIW - quoting someone but not actually quoting them, so they have no idea you're responding to what they wrote...

Anyway, as the Estonian intelligence paper points out (I made no comments myself, simply quoted a NATO member), they are replenishing, just nowhere near fast enough and they're heavily reliant on the US to do so because their own productive capacity is currently at nowhere near the scale now required.

You can’t go around setting up strawman arguments and then accuse people of having ordinary debating tactics.

I don’t doubt you must be somewhat intelligent, but your projection is very obvious. Maybe just calm the jets a bit and engage in good faith, I think most people would appreciate it and would like to engage with you given your research abilities.

 

[Rayzorwire]

What could he possibly have done to “reign in Netanyahu?”

He could have started by condemning the Israeli strikes, just for starters.

Wait a minute...I'm not going to have to start defending myself for criticising Putin now...am I?

 

[mcnulty]

There's quite a lot of conjecture about that

There is?

The Houthi's aren't being indiscriminate at all, they're targeting any ship with the slightest 0.1% ownership, family tie to ownership, or any ship which has helped Israel in any way

Oh they have an algorithm for that? Could you get any more ridiculous?

 

[Chief]

The Russian people, as expressed on every level from political to artistic, have felt increasingly threatened over the last decades by NATO missiles aimed at them creeping always closer.

(I'm just joshing)

 

[mcnulty]

He could have started by condemning the Israeli strikes, just for starters.

Wait a minute...I'm not going to have to start defending myself for criticising Putin now...am I?

One of Irans best buddies condemning Israel’s response to the Iran backed Hamas’ indiscriminate massacre of their civilians might have “reigned Netanyahu in”.

You're in orbit mate.

 

[Rayzorwire]

You know the USA is part of NATO right? Don’t tell me in all your research and referencing you missed that bit?

Which part of his article where he describes how it would be impossible for the US to defend NATO and Taiwan simultaneously are you struggling with?

And that the only way the US can defend both, is with stealth aircraft numbers it currently doesn't have and cannot build within any relevant time frame.

I assume you're gonna pass on whether or not you regard yourself a superior military expert to Kagan?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Which part of his article where he describes how it would be impossible for the US to defend NATO and Taiwan simultaneously are you struggling with?

And that the only way the US can defend both, is with stealth aircraft numbers it currently doesn't have and cannot build within any relevant time frame.

I assume you're gonna pass on whether or not you regard yourself a superior military expert to Kagan?

There you go again setting up a strawman. From your own referenced article.

“The overall military potential of the United States and its NATO allies is so much greater than that of Russia that there is no reason to doubt the West’s ability to defeat any conceivable Russian military even assuming that Russia fully absorbs Ukraine and Belarus”.

Did you even read it? I did.