Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 2

a reply to: Xcathdra

I would rather risk a nuclear exchange than live in a world where Russia sets a standard that Russia, China, N. Korea etc can invade whomever they wish and get away with it because of nukes.

Not wanting to sound dismissive of the situation in Ukraine but this is one of broader issues that seems to be getting ignored.

The whole world is watching Putin getting away with threatening the use of first strike nuclear weapons.
Whether true or not the overriding impression is that NATO would have been a lot more hands on involved if he hadn't threatened to use them.

This will only encourage non-nuclear weaponised countries to gain nuclear capability and other aggressive nations to use the same tactics as Putin.

The more nations with nuclear weapons the more likely someone will use them.
The more common place the threat of using nuclear weapons the more likely someone will use them.

Is it only a matter of time before the inevitable happens?

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

If only more Bushmasters and similar vehicles had been built before the russian invasion...

The historical recriminations concerning the origins of the war in Ukraine are already looking ugly. But the outcome and scale of the war determine how awful the history books are to readers.

Why does it always take something with world war potential to remind certain countries to defend their population and neighbors?

Like the motivations behind the UK/France appeasing Hitler, a genuine but misplaced desire to prevent the next war was in play. Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia went unnoticed or ignored by the US and the international community. But the mentally sick cable news culture that dismissed the Russian threat to Ukraine/global security in 2014 and Obama's blind faith in sanctions won the day.

But that same culture's obsession with Russia and Trump is built upon phoney grounds and not on conditions inside Russia and the threat to Ukraine.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I agree, it's an absurd situation, but we don't need to risk a likely nuclear standoff and/or exchange with a madman that's already lost everything.

Nothing about delaying the russian evacuation of Crimea would be seen as 'appeasement' as russia has already been soundly defeated by the civilized world.

russia can no longer build much military gear, commercial supplies and equipment, or even most consumer goods, and has very few (expensive) ways to import them.

Educated and skilled russians are trying to leave the country in huge numbers, it's currency has no international value, and few will purchase its only 3 exports.

It's citizens have few travel options, even fewer international education options, and it's banks are being cut off from the world.

Even the Red Cross, who always seems to support the palestinian terrorists every time their attacks on Israel results in return fire, has refused to even talk to russia after what russian soldiers have done, which is absolutely unprecedented.

A few billion humans around the world are finally waking up to the completely fake russian propaganda that they had believed without question for at least 30 years.



russia has no way out of the dilemma they themselves caused, better to just close the door on Crimea for a while and let putin's russia die of starvation instead of risking a rabid bite.




Did I mention that I'm a pacifist at heart?

I absolutely despise the idea of killing any human unnecessarily, I would have even given hitler, stalin and mao life sentences in uncomfortable conditions.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

The U.S. backing down in the face of Russian threats to employ nuclear weapons would further destabilise global security. China would attempt the same policy toward the U.S. and Taiwan. Nor would Iran and North Korea fail to take advantage of the situation. Military expansion by tyrannical regimes is a disease that is best treated in Ukraine. If Putin's regime employs nuclear or chemical weapons in Ukraine, the war remains confined to that country.

Strategic calculations require cold-hearted thinking: Putin employing nukes in Ukraine would further Russia's international isolation. India and Israel would end up balancing their interests concerning Russia. The threat of Iran would swamp Israel's stake in the Syrian Civil War, and India's neighbour Pakistan is a member of the "nuclear club."

a reply to: Freeborn

I agree.. I know i sound somewhat like a lunatic with my comments about nuclear use but what other alternative is there? People are so concerned with Russia threatening the use of nukes while desperately trying to find a way to allow Putin to "save face". In my opinion the reaction by certain countries around the world does not but embolden Putin to keep up using the threat.

If there is not a unified response to Russian on the threatened use of nukes then why waste time, money, equipment, manpower etc to counter Russia. The appeasement negates anything the west threatens as a response. All we have to do is look at history and WW2 to see how appeasement works with a person intent on bringing "historical lands" back to Germany.

Contrary to popular belief both Germany and Japan had nuclear weapons programs (Germany was far more advanced at it than Japan). Had Germany or Japan developed nukes 1st they would have used them. Comparing Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan to present day Russia (leadership) its like watching history repeating itself.

When it came to the USSR:
Patton was right
Prime Minister Churchill was right (operation unthinkable)

Allowing Putin to get away with his comments... N. Korea has already announced a change to their nuclear strike, saying they have adopted a first use policy. China is the same with President Xi making the same comments about their nuclear strike policy.

Appeasement does nothing but destroy the concept of MAD.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And yet. “Enlighten” people rush to invest billions in China, and rely heavily on China. You think the world would have learned it’s lesson with China threatening the medical supply chain.

Wake-up call’: Chinese control of U.S. pharmaceutical supplies sparks growing concern

washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/17/china-threatens-restrict-critical-drug-exports-us/

So soon forgotten..

edit on 20-5-2022 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Closing the door on Crimea just tells Putin he has a chance later on to invade the rest of Ukraine and with the knowledge the west wont assist Ukraine except for military equipment.

By letting Ukraine "sink" all we are doing in reality is watching the West sink.

Being a pacifist is not all bad. However it reminds me of the analogy where a guy is listening to the news on the radio where they are discussing the peace protest downtown (insert any city). The guy jumps in his car and heads to the protest. He listens to a speaker who is preaching peace at all costs, people need to turn the other cheek, insert other peace protests slogans here.

The guy approached the speaker and punches him in the face, sending him to the ground. When the speaker gets up he start to respond, and the guy then throws all of his slogans back in his face, turn the other cheek etc. The speaker then starts preaching to the crowd again and the guy, again pouches the speaker in the face and down he goes. The speaker gets up and again start to move towards the guy who punched him, and again the guy throws everything the guy said, turn the other cheek etc, back in his face.

Long story short this happens again with the same results. Eventually the guy preaching peace eventually has to admit that there will be certain situation where turning the other cheek will never work and that the person demanding peace must fight for that peace he wants.

In my opinion we have reached that point with Putin. Enough of turning the other cheek, allowing a face saving way out, etc. If we want a peaceful world then we will have to fight for it.

a reply to: neutronflux

You should probably do research on foreign investment in China because it says you are not entirely correct.

Regarding nuke use, Putin has effectively "asked the question".

The possibility has always been there. I've seen Soviet plans for invasion of Europe and the map was literally covered with mushroom cloud symbols. Not sure what they intended to achieve with such a war, but that plan cast a shadow that we can see in Russia's approach to Mariupol (destruction, with a loopy plan to rebuild it as a tourist resort and the Azovstal works completely removed).

At some point, a madman will use a nuke. No one has a good solution as to how to respond to such an act.

Hopefully, not everyone holding the levers of power in Russia are on board with a nuclear strike.

Cheers

a reply to: Xcathdra


The only way I think we differ in the end is that you think leaving Crimea for later is a face saving way out for putin, while I think it's terminal cancer for russia.




While many (maybe even putin) probably agree with your assessment, I see Crimea as only a trap.

A trap for the West if Ukraine makes a serious effort to retake it by force in the coming months, and a trap for russia if they hold onto it for a while longer.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Possibly... What I am seeing is what Russia is going be dealing with as all of this moves forward. Even if Ukraine is "conquered" it is not the end of the war. Zelenskyy said when all of this began is Ukrainians (essentially a resistance) would attack and destroy everything Russia needs to allow them to control Ukraine (even though they dont have the forces to occupy all of Ukraine (estimates say Russia needs another 600k troops). We know its happening in Kherson as well as up in Northeast Ukraine. Some "resistance" fighters not only destroyed a train from Russia but also killed some senior officers in the process.

I guess the question is: Is it safe enough for Ukraine to give up land fro peace in hopes people in occupied areas "resist". Or would Ukrainians in areas ceded by Ukraine just give up and try to move elsewhere? If Ukraine goes down the peace road then NATO / west countries need to tell Putin to shove his complaints and move military units into Ukraine to deter Putin from starting another war.


On a side note Russia put out a video showing the destruction of the M777's. Apparently it was a fake (well, Dennis claims that).

a reply to: Xcathdra


I think it's 'safe' to do this with Crimea only, but it certainly carries some risk.

Not nuclear war risk, but not risk free either.

How am I not correct…

Persons and companies have a double standard in how and if the criticize China vs the west. And no matter the true root cause, we are way to dependent on China for maintaining much of the supply chain. I hope I’m wrong on that we are not as dependent on China since covid.

originally posted by: neutronflux
How am I not correct…

Persons and companies have a double standard in how and if the criticize China vs the west. And no matter the true root cause, we are way to dependent on China for maintaining much of the supply chain. I hope I’m wrong on that we are not as dependent on China since covid.

You are both correct.

We are still massively dependent on ccp due to previous insane policy 'decisions', and ccp is also experiencing a massive decline in foreign investments and is seeing a significant amount of their production capacity relocating to other countries.

* - Lieutenant General Sergei Kisel was Dismissed

a reply to: Xcathdra

Kisel was CG of the First Tank Army. I've no idea what size that force is in today's Russian army. A few brigades, maybe?

ETA: This army commanded seven regiments of combat troops at the start of the invasion. These regiments were subordinated to three different divisions. The army also included support troops like engineers etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

500 to 800 tanks.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As an aside, I gain the impression the honorary title "Guards" doesn't mean much, if anything, in the modern Russian army.

Wonder if the Chechens are still executing sulkers in extremist style.

Cheers

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

500 to 800 tanks.

That was so 2 months ago!





More like 50-80 tanks now.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

Reminds me of a dry joke among Soviet commanders during the run-up to the Battle of Stalingrad.

Their 4th Tank Army was referred to as the "four tank army" following a bruising encounter with the Wehrmacht.

Cheers