Russia Ukraine Update Thread

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I’d wager more money than you can afford that had NATO not expanded to Russia’s doorstep and deploy missiles 75 miles from their border, Russia wouldnt have invade Ukraine at all.

Last time I checked Ukraine wasn't in NATO.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
...and doesnt imply Russian equipment is useless.

Of course it doesn't 'imply' that, it 100% informs that a Soviet era clunker like the T-72/90 is useless against modern weaponry, particularly if the reactive armor is subpar or ineffective. Might as well send the troops in with Lada clown cars.

Actually in some tests the latest T-90 was shown to have better armour than the US M1A2 Abrams. However modern infantry AT weapons like Javelin can be devastating even to the best tanks.
Tanks in urban areas need a lot of infantry support which the Russians seem to have forgotten.

Infantry AT weapons and airpower can be devastating to armour forces, for this reason some analysts say the tank may have had it's day.
When used correctly tanks can still be useful but when used incorrectly the results can be devastating.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
Tanks in urban areas need a lot of infantry support which the Russians seem to have forgotten.

I don't believe that for a second, that's just globalist propaganda. I bet the war is already over and all the dead Russian soldiers are home enjoying time with their families.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Your not supposed to deal from weakness ISeekTruth101 hence Ukraine stance regarding compromise.

End of the day with sanctions and pressure Russia will run out of steam long before the West or Ukraine do.

And Putin's new colour of the day is apt to be with Sweden and Finland joining NATO never mind the poor Ukraine.

Salient point also, the West now knows Russia cannot carry out any sorts of Blitzkrieg or even manage proper mechanised columns if we are honest.

Putin is the one that needs to be pragmatic and come back to reality imho.

I maintain that Russia will not run out of steam and if their security concerns are not addressed there will be no end to the Ukraine conflict and Ukraine will be demolished further and wider conflict in eastern europe will ensue.

If Putin and Russia run out of steam as you say, great. Peace can reign and I’ll be all the more richer when the economy stabilises and less people will die.

So I hope you’re right, but I suspect you will be wrong.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Just a thought but.

How relevant do you imagine a mere 75 miles will be in the new age of hypersonic missiles ISeekTruth101?

originally posted by: JimTSpock

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
...and doesnt imply Russian equipment is useless.

Of course it doesn't 'imply' that, it 100% informs that a Soviet era clunker like the T-72/90 is useless against modern weaponry, particularly if the reactive armor is subpar or ineffective. Might as well send the troops in with Lada clown cars.

Actually in some tests the latest T-90 was shown to have better armour than the US M1A2 Abrams. However modern infantry AT weapons like Javelin can be devastating even to the best tanks.
Tanks in urban areas need a lot of infantry support which the Russians seem to have forgotten.

Infantry AT weapons and airpower can be devastating to armour forces, for this reason some analysts say the tank may have had it's day.
When used correctly tanks can still be useful but when used incorrectly the results can be devastating.

Good points

Not to mention that Russia has had missiles on NATO's border for a LONG time, but I wouldn't expect the pro-Russian folk here to want anybody to hear about those Russian missiles in the Kaliningrad Exclave.

Not to mention that surface to air missiles are ENTIRELY DEFENSIVE systems that don't threaten the Russian air force as long as it stays in its own airspace. HARDLY comparable to surface to surface missile systems like the Iskander-M found in Kaliningrad.

OH, BUT: those NATO SAMs may intercept Russian Iskanders fired from Kaliningrad, thus the pro-Moscow crowd has to expend an ocean of tears over other countries defending themselves from Russian offensive weaponry.

More useless thread derailment from a predictable direction.

Cheers

Interesting discussion over the last few pages. My two penn'orth, is as follows:

On whether Russia is invading Ukraine, or not?

Well, as they have already invaded and annexed Crimea, the point seems moot. But clearly, this "special operation" is an invasion.

On whether the Russian forces are any good?

Well, clearly, like all military forces, there is good and bad.

What is clear is that the Russians have demonstrated a poor doctrine, poor logistics and poor battlefield management. They have not thought through the scenario that Ukraine would fight back. This suggests their leadership and planning has been poor and probably built on groupthink.

There are reports of low morale, with kit being abandoned at the first sign of trouble. I guess driving past lines of burned out lorries and tanks is a bit morale-sapping at the best of times.

One problem area is the lack of air superiority. Russia does not seem capable of conducting complex air operations in a hostile environment. That, and the lack of precision munitions, makes you wonder why Russia have bothered to make all these fancy fighters.

As time goes on and Ukraine get more equipment from the West, the balance shifts towards the defenders.

I do think that the Russian performance in Ukraine to date has shown the Russian military to be a paper tiger. If it was not for the nukes, NATO would have intervened and cleared the ground by now.

I support Ukraine and feel that my views of Russian belligerence voiced over the years have been vindicated. Russia just brings misery to the world. The sooner they leave Ukraine, the better.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

If you could simply explain how they will hold the place or stop them executing/assassinating whatever puppet leader Putin chooses to place in power should they actual manage to occupy the place that might be nice?

Military occupation doctrine being around 20 troops for ever 1000 people, that's about 2.2 million troops Russia is apt to require stationed in Ukraine to keep the place locked down tight.

Cant see how that's going to work out for poor Russia back home if im honest, but i don't imagine it will be very nice and do imagine its a rather expensive proposition bordering on the impossible.

a reply to: andy06shake

Sounds like something an obsessed leader would do. Throws commonsense out the window.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Just because Nations can join NATOS Doesnt mean they should as we have learned.

I'd wager all I have that there isn't one country in NATO right now that wishes they didn't join.

I’d wager more money than you can afford that had NATO not expanded to Russia’s doorstep and deploy missiles 75 miles from their border, Russia wouldnt have invade Ukraine at all. Whether 2014 or 2022.

See years 1991 to 2014 for reference of Russia peace.

If it's all about NATO then please explain Russia's aggression in the War in Abkhazia (91-93), Transnistria War (92), & Russo-Georgian War (08).

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Just a thought but.

How relevant do you imagine a mere 75 miles will be in the new age of hypersonic missiles ISeekTruth101?

Well, All I can comment on is that if both america and russia have hypersonic missiles and they were both deployed far away from each others borders that would be fair.

But thats not the case as USA have deployed their Aegis Ashore missiles in Poland with a flight time of 7 minutes to Moscow. Missile can be nuclear armed. This happened in 2011 before Russia developed Hypersonic missiles so it has been ten years. But america would have you believe that this deployment is an a deterrent to iran like we were born yesterday. How russia remained silent since 2011 is beyond me but they reacted this year to decade of hostile moves.

There was no need for USA to deploy those missiles which only served to antagonise Russia and not promote a cosy peaceful atmosphere for russia. Could have been avoided if the US listened to its own voices of concerns regarding their expansion into russias sphere to ignore russias concerns was a mistake.

Do you think for one second that if Russia deployed their missiles to mexico (if they agreed to host them) and aligned with russia that UsA would stay silent? No way

Just like then cuban missile crisis that i fall back to as an example of Us hypocrisy where they were happy to station missiles in turkey but when USSR deployed in Cuba they lost their rag and threatened global thermonuclear war. Estavlished UK, russian based Journalist Peter Hitchen said it well:

“ I have heard a respected MP calling for the deportation of all Russians from this country – all of them. I have heard crazy people calling for a 'no-fly zone' in Ukraine. If they got their way it would mean a terrible and immediate European war. I suspect they do not even know what they are calling for. Can you all please call off this carnival of hypocrisy?

I cannot join in it. I know too much. I know that our policy of Nato expansion – which we had promised not to do and which we knew infuriated Russians – played its part in bringing about this crisis.”

So why posters here are burying their head in the sand regarding the events that lead to this conflict is proof of wide spread ignorance on the matter and dangerous idealism that doesn’t solve real world issues but inflame them further.

He's supposedly the richest person on earth. Wealth is a different matter. Im way wealthier than ole Russian guy.

That being said. Do we really think he just tossed billions of dollars and thousands of lives right out the window before he knew what was happening? No way. He was all in for WHATEVER from the jump. Will Ukraine fight to the last man, woman, child? Or will some kind of integration happen..I think Putin would be fine with complete surrender and 'temporary' governmental control via his military. Don't really see him backing off with all the fresh supplies coming in from all over the place..if for no other reason than acquisition....

One of the demands is de-militarization of Ukraine, due to the nazi infestation of Ukraines government..I just don't see this guy offering any relief, shy of total surrender by the Ukrainians..maybe though..

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Just because Nations can join NATOS Doesnt mean they should as we have learned.

I'd wager all I have that there isn't one country in NATO right now that wishes they didn't join.

I’d wager more money than you can afford that had NATO not expanded to Russia’s doorstep and deploy missiles 75 miles from their border, Russia wouldnt have invade Ukraine at all. Whether 2014 or 2022.

See years 1991 to 2014 for reference of Russia peace.

If it's all about NATO then please explain Russia's aggression in the War in Abkhazia (91-93), Transnistria War (92), & Russo-Georgian War (08).

Please explain NATOs shelling of Yugoslavia, IRAQ, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.

Condemn all or none. Fact is NATOs expansion into eastern europe lead to this mess in Ukraine. And they gave plenty of warnings and the Former US defense secretary said the same thing:

“

In his 2014 memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both Bush's administration and Barack Obama's, conceded that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching." That initiative, he concluded, was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests."

“

Ted Galen Carpenter said it best, and THIS THREAD IS LIVING PROOF of his sentiment:

“It has become especially fashionable in such circles to insist that NATO's expansion to Russia's border was in no way responsible for the current Ukraine crisis. Many dismiss all arguments to the contrary as "echoing Putin's talking points," "siding with Putin," or circulating Russian propaganda and "disinformation." Leaving aside the ugly miasma of McCarthyism enveloping such allegations, the underlying argument is factually wrong“

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

If you could simply explain how they will hold the place or stop them executing/assassinating whatever puppet leader Putin chooses to place in power should they actual manage to occupy the place that might be nice?

Military occupation doctrine being around 20 troops for ever 1000 people, that's about 2.2 million troops Russia is apt to require stationed in Ukraine to keep the place locked down tight.

Cant see how that's going to work out for poor Russia back home if im honest, but i don't imagine it will be very nice and do imagine its a rather expensive proposition bordering on the impossible.

Sorry Andy I didnt understand your question. If its about Putins ambitions for Ukraine, I have stated previously that based on his own words and posturing he intends to disarm ukraine, install a putin friendly regime and then leave. And based on geopolitics of the past decade in the region I concur. Ukraine to become a buffer zone for Russia, a neutral zone, a demilitarised zone as with S and N korea

And this is further supported by reports of Russias systematically taking out 4000 military installations they clearly going after infrastructure as a long term plan to disarm the nation buy hey lets wait and see where this all ends up. This is my view on the situation. No intention to occupy the Ukraine Iraq or afghanistan style.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I’d wager more money than you can afford that had NATO not expanded to Russia’s doorstep and deploy missiles 75 miles from their border, Russia wouldnt have invade Ukraine at all.

Last time I checked Ukraine wasn't in NATO.

Last time I checked NATO, Russia and Ukraine were also aware of this fact. Weldone.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Countries are free to apply to join NATO that is their choice. They see Russia as the threat and Pootin's invasion shows that is correct. Now more countries will want to join NATO. No one wants to join Russia. It is quite obvious why.

And installing a Putin friendly regime as you put it, how will that regime maintain power except with Russian occupation troops. Well it won't.

Pootin and the current Kremlin regime are about the biggest liars I've ever seen. Whatever they say the opposite is true.

No no not invading. No no not occupying. No no not targeting civilians... see the pattern.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Last time I checked NATO, Russia and Ukraine were also aware of this fact. Weldone.

So admittedly your point was pointless.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Countries are free to apply to join NATO that is their choice. They see Russia as the threat and Pootin's invasion shows that is correct. Now more countries will want to join NATO. No one wants to join Russia. It is quite obvious why.

And installing a Putin friendly regime as you put it, how will that regime maintain power except with Russian occupation troops. Well it won't.

Pootin and the current Kremlin regime are about the biggest liars I've ever seen. Whatever they say the opposite is true.

No no not invading. No no not occupying. No no not targeting civilians... see the pattern.

It would work the same way it worked in the past ...without Russiantroops on the ground, did your historical context also start when CNN started reporting on this? Why else would you make such a comment. Jog your memory to the days before Zelensky.

And if NATO is free to accept any nation into its alliance why these words by the Former US secretary of defence:

“In his 2014 memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both Bush's administration and Barack Obama's, conceded that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching." That initiative, he concluded, was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests."

Why does he view it as a concern and not you?

What can he see that that you don’t? Not just him but Peter hitchens, former foreign correspondent for Moscow/washington and Ted Galen Carpenter a published author on foreign policy and international affairs who says:

“Russian leaders and several Western policy experts were warning more than two decades ago that NATO expansion would turn out badly—ending in a new cold war with Russia at best, and a hot one at worst. Obviously, they were not "echoing" Putin or anyone else. George Kennan, the intellectual architect of America's containment policy during the Cold War, perceptively warned in a May 2, 1998 New York Times interview what NATO's move eastward would set in motion. “

You give the impression that these individuals with their collective studied knowledge on the matters at hand are full of BS and you... an ATS poster with no discernible credentials know better? I apologise if I am mistaken. Please enlighten me on with your knowledge.

Convince me then they are full of BS.. As im seeking out people with knowledge and credentials.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Smashing excuses. LoL

You get that NATO is just one step closer to your door step one way or the other now down Sweden and Finland reaction to Putin's antics of depravity?

Good luck burring your heads in that sand.