It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nord Stream has been suspended indefinitely
page: 8share:
a reply to: xpert11
That is true, for most nations. Pipelines are far safer, less subject to interruption, and have a larger capacity over time for less cost than seafaring lanes. That was brought into public focus by two events: the successful completion/operation of the Alaskan pipeline and the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
But China has not had that choice until recently. Only when the extent of Russian oil/gas reserves was realized did Russia become a serious energy exporter. Until then, China had no choice but to use tankers for its supply. To the north and south, there was no energy worthy of a pipeline; the the west/southwest lie the Himalayan mountains. So there was either no energy to be had from a pipeline or it was simply unfeasible (possibly impossible) to construct a pipeline.
That changed when Russia began exporting energy on a serious basis. Suddenly China had the option of a pipeline from Russia, and they took it. There are several pipelines right now pumping energy into China from Russia, and more are under construction. That's essentially uninterruptible energy sourcing on a level that can make a difference.
But remember that China needs more. We're talking about 1/4 of the global population; that's a LOT of energy needed to sustain a population that large in non-third-world conditions, and even more to transform them into a first-world industrialized society! Is it really hard to accept China as being jealous of every cubic meter that went to Europe instead of China?
Russia also wanted multiple customers; they did not want to sell exclusively to China. That's why Russia was using Ukrainian pipelines and why they built the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. It's why they were so active in the Middle East and why they now have ties to Iran; the pipelines from Russia can now export Russian oil directly to the Persian Gulf. That's why they invaded Georgia a few years back; they needed access for their pipelines. It's why they were involved with the Syrian conflict; that was over Syria and iran connecting pipelines to give Iran a Mediterranean port, which would have given Russia a Mediterranean port by proxy as well.
Russia wants to sell to the world.
The only reason Russia stopped selling oil to Europe was the closure of the pipelines and the sanctions. We, the West, made that decision for them; they did not make it for themselves. As a result, China now stands to get more of Russia's energy as new pipelines open. Russia gets more money for their economy at the same time.
That makes no sense. It's not that I doubt your word, but I see no advantage to the Biden administration for sending surplus hardware and claiming it is all new. According to Mr. Know-it-all No-pants on the evening news, we are sending tons of Grade-A military weapons to Ukraine and want to send even more!
So let's say that is incorrect, propaganda for the masses... what does that propaganda benefit the Biden administration? I see no possible benefit. Such a public perception would only be expected to foment opposition, whereas playing down the aid or at least showing it as surplus only would make everyone's life in the current regime much easier. You even admit to that. I know Biden is suffering from dementia, but there is someone behind the scenes controlling the propaganda who is not suffering from mental difficulties. Want proof? Biden won the election, whether or not it was due to cheating! If he won it legitimately, then he successfully outsmarted over half the voters; if not, he successfully pulled off the greatest example of election fraud ever known.
In short, I see no real reason to question Mr. Know-it-all No-pants on this issue. If you have some information on that point, i would like to see it.
There again, I think you are thinking emotionally, not factually. Vladimir Putin is no dumb hick playing general. He has to have good information from the front line, and he knows that as well as anyone. Anyone in his inner circle who doesn't give him accurate information is only signing their own death warrant as soon as the truth is exposed. I refuse to believe that everyone in Vladimir Putin's inner circle is suicidal.
I know it's fun to fantasize about how impotent Putin is and how useless the Russian military is, but the simple truth is that we don't really know why Russia invaded Ukraine or what their mission was. Until we know that, we cannot really determine the effectiveness of Russia's incursion. "Hey, look! Russia didn't invade Spain last Thursday like we think they wanted to! Fail!"
From Kyiv's perspective, it is an occupation. From the West's perspective, it is an occupation. I doubt it is an occupation from a Russian perspective.
Heck, from my point of view, I am living under an occupation. I do not consider our current administration legitimate, and they are most certainly not benevolent!
But what I am concerned with is, is it an occupation from the East Ukrainian common-man's perspective? I don't think we know that yet. Mr. Know-it-all No-pants says it is, but I don't trust him on that point. There are too many reasons why that potentially false narrative would be pushed.
TheRedneck
strategically, oil and gas pipelines are immune from a potential USN blockade. After people's memories of WW2 faded and the Cold War ended, the value of sea power was forgotten in some quarters.
That is true, for most nations. Pipelines are far safer, less subject to interruption, and have a larger capacity over time for less cost than seafaring lanes. That was brought into public focus by two events: the successful completion/operation of the Alaskan pipeline and the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
But China has not had that choice until recently. Only when the extent of Russian oil/gas reserves was realized did Russia become a serious energy exporter. Until then, China had no choice but to use tankers for its supply. To the north and south, there was no energy worthy of a pipeline; the the west/southwest lie the Himalayan mountains. So there was either no energy to be had from a pipeline or it was simply unfeasible (possibly impossible) to construct a pipeline.
That changed when Russia began exporting energy on a serious basis. Suddenly China had the option of a pipeline from Russia, and they took it. There are several pipelines right now pumping energy into China from Russia, and more are under construction. That's essentially uninterruptible energy sourcing on a level that can make a difference.
But remember that China needs more. We're talking about 1/4 of the global population; that's a LOT of energy needed to sustain a population that large in non-third-world conditions, and even more to transform them into a first-world industrialized society! Is it really hard to accept China as being jealous of every cubic meter that went to Europe instead of China?
Russia also wanted multiple customers; they did not want to sell exclusively to China. That's why Russia was using Ukrainian pipelines and why they built the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. It's why they were so active in the Middle East and why they now have ties to Iran; the pipelines from Russia can now export Russian oil directly to the Persian Gulf. That's why they invaded Georgia a few years back; they needed access for their pipelines. It's why they were involved with the Syrian conflict; that was over Syria and iran connecting pipelines to give Iran a Mediterranean port, which would have given Russia a Mediterranean port by proxy as well.
Russia wants to sell to the world.
The only reason Russia stopped selling oil to Europe was the closure of the pipelines and the sanctions. We, the West, made that decision for them; they did not make it for themselves. As a result, China now stands to get more of Russia's energy as new pipelines open. Russia gets more money for their economy at the same time.
The bulk of U.S. military aid to Ukraine is existing equipment. Older or worn-out military hardware is dispatched to Ukraine. A modest contribution toward Ukraine's efforts to ward off Russian military aggression. Granted, the Biden Admin's lack of communication concerning that matter and lack of empathy for the American people are on display.
That makes no sense. It's not that I doubt your word, but I see no advantage to the Biden administration for sending surplus hardware and claiming it is all new. According to Mr. Know-it-all No-pants on the evening news, we are sending tons of Grade-A military weapons to Ukraine and want to send even more!
So let's say that is incorrect, propaganda for the masses... what does that propaganda benefit the Biden administration? I see no possible benefit. Such a public perception would only be expected to foment opposition, whereas playing down the aid or at least showing it as surplus only would make everyone's life in the current regime much easier. You even admit to that. I know Biden is suffering from dementia, but there is someone behind the scenes controlling the propaganda who is not suffering from mental difficulties. Want proof? Biden won the election, whether or not it was due to cheating! If he won it legitimately, then he successfully outsmarted over half the voters; if not, he successfully pulled off the greatest example of election fraud ever known.
In short, I see no real reason to question Mr. Know-it-all No-pants on this issue. If you have some information on that point, i would like to see it.
The idea concerning Russia's war in Ukraine faring well is nonsensical, but the war's outcome is far from decided. No one in Putin's inner circle would tell him home truths about the state of the Russian armed forces. So Putin's fantasy of a quick Russian victory in Ukraine halted on the battlefield. It is like the Russian war machine went swimming with Harold Holt.
There again, I think you are thinking emotionally, not factually. Vladimir Putin is no dumb hick playing general. He has to have good information from the front line, and he knows that as well as anyone. Anyone in his inner circle who doesn't give him accurate information is only signing their own death warrant as soon as the truth is exposed. I refuse to believe that everyone in Vladimir Putin's inner circle is suicidal.
I know it's fun to fantasize about how impotent Putin is and how useless the Russian military is, but the simple truth is that we don't really know why Russia invaded Ukraine or what their mission was. Until we know that, we cannot really determine the effectiveness of Russia's incursion. "Hey, look! Russia didn't invade Spain last Thursday like we think they wanted to! Fail!"
Ukraine is a deeply flawed democracy, but that is far better than living under Russian occupation.
From Kyiv's perspective, it is an occupation. From the West's perspective, it is an occupation. I doubt it is an occupation from a Russian perspective.
Heck, from my point of view, I am living under an occupation. I do not consider our current administration legitimate, and they are most certainly not benevolent!
But what I am concerned with is, is it an occupation from the East Ukrainian common-man's perspective? I don't think we know that yet. Mr. Know-it-all No-pants says it is, but I don't trust him on that point. There are too many reasons why that potentially false narrative would be pushed.
TheRedneck
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2
That's the fail.
We need to clue every single public official on the planet in to that. Just pulling out Putin does absolutely nothing but perpetuate the cycle.
TheRedneck
I agree. Be nice if someone clue'd in Vladimir regarding such.
That's the fail.
We need to clue every single public official on the planet in to that. Just pulling out Putin does absolutely nothing but perpetuate the cycle.
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
China's consumption of natural resources matches a country undergoing the industrial revolution and the transistor age (my wording) over the last 40 years.
To illustrate my point concerning U.S. military aid to Ukraine. The M113 armoured personnel carriers (APC) are from the 1960s. Granted, Australia committed a small number of upgraded versions of that vehicle to Ukraine. I don't doubt that APCs are in working order, but they aren't new vehicles.
Also, the armoured Humvees that saw service with Kiwi troops in Afghanistan were already well used. The U.S. Army often offloads worn-out vehicles at auctions to civilians. Although they aren't necessarily the same armoured Humvees, who knows what condition those Humvees were in upon their arrival in Ukraine?
The Biden admin has bright foreign minds, and the AUKUS agreement demonstrated that. But observation also sits alongside the U.S. and coalition forces disastrous with withdrawal from Afghanistan. So I agree concerning Biden's health, and Harris is a phoney who was captured by "corporate special interests."
The problem is the absence of authentic leadership from the Oval Office and the Vice President. For example, Senator Rand Paul used flooding and loss of life in Kentucky to politicise aid to Ukraine. Despite Biden visiting flood-affected areas, he didn't have sufficient impact to leave Paul embarrassed by his future comments. But Biden and Harris are too far out of touch with the American people to understand people's concerns. The same applies to communicating how they can tackle domestic issues and the war in Ukraine at the same time.
I never claimed Putin was dumb. But he is a megalomaniac dictator who doesn't acknowledge Ukraine's right to exist. The character of Putin ensures no one in his inner circle will disagree with him. The same applied to Hitler and Stalin. The impact of corruption and military incompetency on the Russian armed forces is well documented. The war in Ukraine is where many lessons are relearned, but that is another discussion.
Moreover, my support for Ukraine isn't unconditional. If Russian forces are evicted from Ukraine, other issues will arise from the rubble. Pre - 2022 Ukraine was plagued by institutional corruption, and that matter would impact reconstruction.
Russian atrocities and disregard for civilian causalities are how Ukrainians perceive their Russian occupiers. There is no subtext to that situation.
China's consumption of natural resources matches a country undergoing the industrial revolution and the transistor age (my wording) over the last 40 years.
To illustrate my point concerning U.S. military aid to Ukraine. The M113 armoured personnel carriers (APC) are from the 1960s. Granted, Australia committed a small number of upgraded versions of that vehicle to Ukraine. I don't doubt that APCs are in working order, but they aren't new vehicles.
Also, the armoured Humvees that saw service with Kiwi troops in Afghanistan were already well used. The U.S. Army often offloads worn-out vehicles at auctions to civilians. Although they aren't necessarily the same armoured Humvees, who knows what condition those Humvees were in upon their arrival in Ukraine?
The Biden admin has bright foreign minds, and the AUKUS agreement demonstrated that. But observation also sits alongside the U.S. and coalition forces disastrous with withdrawal from Afghanistan. So I agree concerning Biden's health, and Harris is a phoney who was captured by "corporate special interests."
The problem is the absence of authentic leadership from the Oval Office and the Vice President. For example, Senator Rand Paul used flooding and loss of life in Kentucky to politicise aid to Ukraine. Despite Biden visiting flood-affected areas, he didn't have sufficient impact to leave Paul embarrassed by his future comments. But Biden and Harris are too far out of touch with the American people to understand people's concerns. The same applies to communicating how they can tackle domestic issues and the war in Ukraine at the same time.
I never claimed Putin was dumb. But he is a megalomaniac dictator who doesn't acknowledge Ukraine's right to exist. The character of Putin ensures no one in his inner circle will disagree with him. The same applied to Hitler and Stalin. The impact of corruption and military incompetency on the Russian armed forces is well documented. The war in Ukraine is where many lessons are relearned, but that is another discussion.
Moreover, my support for Ukraine isn't unconditional. If Russian forces are evicted from Ukraine, other issues will arise from the rubble. Pre - 2022 Ukraine was plagued by institutional corruption, and that matter would impact reconstruction.
Russian atrocities and disregard for civilian causalities are how Ukrainians perceive their Russian occupiers. There is no subtext to that situation.
a reply to: xpert11
It does.
But China is undergoing a technological shift much greater than what other countries went through entering the Industrial Revolution. They are, essentially, playing "catch-up" while also leading in many areas. All computer chips, from basic logic circuits to the the AMD Threadripper 32-core behemoth, are made in China. When I say "all," that's not an exaggeration either. I use semiconductors constantly in my work and without a single exception every chip I have received in the last 30 years has been made in China.
China was one of the first to recognize the importance of rare earth minerals. These materials are absolutely required to produce integrated circuits; there is no known way to produce semiconductors without them. They are also quite rare as their name implies, existing almost everywhere but in such minute quantities that there is no such thing as a "yttrium mine" or a "gallium mine." Instead, they are extracted from ores used to initially acquire other metals which tend to occur in veins. For example, a copper mine may, once the copper is extracted, reprocess the ores to produce lathanum and cerium.
But to do so requires specialized refining equipment and produces a lot of pollution. China has that equipment in place, and China allows the pollution. No other country on earth does so to any appreciable extent.
With the availability of the necessary materials, China has established themselves as the global supplier for semiconductors. The cost of producing the necessary materials for semiconductor manufacturing is prohibitive in any other country which has a sufficient economy to do so... pollution regulations, and the lack of required materials make it so.
Those semiconductors operate everything in our lives, from radio alarm clocks to thermostats to televisions to computers to calculators to the "brain box" in our cars. Our military would be dead in the water without them, as all these great new planes and weapons systems are built using semiconductors. Without semiconductors, we would be back to using radio tubes, and that is not an exaggeration.
This is not some industrial accident. either. China has known all along what they were doing. One cannot purchase rare earth materials from China in bulk. All of China's rare earth elements are used domestically. Any rare earths that can be purchased are from other countries with greatly limited production, typically to provide for research. The price is enormous, far, far too great to allow for any sort of production.
All that industrialization takes energy. While the Industrial Revolution itself occurred among all developed nations simultaneously, China is a latecomer to the party. They have that ace in the hole, so they have the ability to far exceed the technological development of present developed nations. All they need is a lot more energy and a little time.
My limited experience with the DoD has shown me that once the papers are signed and the money is tramsferred, the military makes little to no distinction between "new" and "serviceable." It tends to take a binary view of its hardware; anyone who has ever read a military technical manual can see that clearly. There is no classification for "new," only "serviceable," "unserviceable," and "surplus." That's why I can't see Ukraine being supplied with sub-par hardware, unless it was deemed "surplus" and thus not on the same level as arms we would use.
To the average person, an item tends to undergo a mental depreciation over time. We might look at a computer and think "Oh, that was bought three years ago! It's out of date; I need a new one." The military looks at a three year old computer and says "It is still operating within written specifications; use it." They would say the same about the brand-new computer we would buy to replace it.
Intentionally, I'm sure you didn't. But the fact is, you do tend to attribute certain characteristics to Putin that would equate to "dumb" if applied to anyone else.
It has been said many times that Putin wants to absorb Ukraine back into Russia, in some attempt to restore the USSR. But if that is true, he went about it all wrong! He launched a very surgical invasion with a relatively small number of highly mobile troops. I'm sure there are many school age children sitting at home right now who would know better than that. An attempt to take a country over is accomplished with a sudden, massive invasion that essentially mows across the country taking everything as it goes, perhaps concentrating on communications and industrial centers along the way. Putin went in and ignored those; he directly attacked to disable military response centers and left other areas intact. His efforts seem to have specific target sites instead of targeting the country itself.
That would be a dumb move. Therefore, Putin was not trying to overtake Ukraine. Putin must have invaded for a specific purpose. We may not know for sure what that purpose was, but we can easily see that there was a specific military objective.
Anything else is the same as calling Putin "dumb," whether it is meant to be intentional or not.
Agreed, but that sentiment is too little too late. It ignores the fact that Russia has invaded and that the conflict is ongoing. Had enough people held that sentiment prior to the invasion, it is quite possible there would have been no invasion.
There are certain lines that, once crossed, cannot be uncrossed. Military action is one of those. Russia cannot "un-invade" Ukraine; it's simply not possible. If they pulled out now, the opposite effect that you describe would happen: the propaganda machine would focus on all the damage that Russia caused and completely ignore any corruption in Ukraine. The result would be more trouble for Russia than they would have had if they had never invaded. I think Putin probably knows that by now.
So what is the benefit to Russia for withdrawing? I see none. I was always taught that if one wished to get a person to do something, one's best course of action was to make it attractive to do so. We no longer do that. Russia has no real choice: if they withdraw, they lose all chance of completing whatever mission Putin had in mind; if they do not withdraw the fighting continues.
That's not how one stops a military action; that is precisely how one maintains a military action. Ergo, the West is actually trying to keep Russia from withdrawing from Ukraine, despite what Mr. Know-it-all No-pants says during the evening news. The real question we should be asking is "Why?"
I am not convinced of that. Mr. Know-it-all No-pants may be, but I am not.
TheRedneck
China's consumption of natural resources matches a country undergoing the industrial revolution and the transistor age (my wording) over the last 40 years.
It does.
But China is undergoing a technological shift much greater than what other countries went through entering the Industrial Revolution. They are, essentially, playing "catch-up" while also leading in many areas. All computer chips, from basic logic circuits to the the AMD Threadripper 32-core behemoth, are made in China. When I say "all," that's not an exaggeration either. I use semiconductors constantly in my work and without a single exception every chip I have received in the last 30 years has been made in China.
China was one of the first to recognize the importance of rare earth minerals. These materials are absolutely required to produce integrated circuits; there is no known way to produce semiconductors without them. They are also quite rare as their name implies, existing almost everywhere but in such minute quantities that there is no such thing as a "yttrium mine" or a "gallium mine." Instead, they are extracted from ores used to initially acquire other metals which tend to occur in veins. For example, a copper mine may, once the copper is extracted, reprocess the ores to produce lathanum and cerium.
But to do so requires specialized refining equipment and produces a lot of pollution. China has that equipment in place, and China allows the pollution. No other country on earth does so to any appreciable extent.
With the availability of the necessary materials, China has established themselves as the global supplier for semiconductors. The cost of producing the necessary materials for semiconductor manufacturing is prohibitive in any other country which has a sufficient economy to do so... pollution regulations, and the lack of required materials make it so.
Those semiconductors operate everything in our lives, from radio alarm clocks to thermostats to televisions to computers to calculators to the "brain box" in our cars. Our military would be dead in the water without them, as all these great new planes and weapons systems are built using semiconductors. Without semiconductors, we would be back to using radio tubes, and that is not an exaggeration.
This is not some industrial accident. either. China has known all along what they were doing. One cannot purchase rare earth materials from China in bulk. All of China's rare earth elements are used domestically. Any rare earths that can be purchased are from other countries with greatly limited production, typically to provide for research. The price is enormous, far, far too great to allow for any sort of production.
All that industrialization takes energy. While the Industrial Revolution itself occurred among all developed nations simultaneously, China is a latecomer to the party. They have that ace in the hole, so they have the ability to far exceed the technological development of present developed nations. All they need is a lot more energy and a little time.
U.S. military aid to Ukraine
My limited experience with the DoD has shown me that once the papers are signed and the money is tramsferred, the military makes little to no distinction between "new" and "serviceable." It tends to take a binary view of its hardware; anyone who has ever read a military technical manual can see that clearly. There is no classification for "new," only "serviceable," "unserviceable," and "surplus." That's why I can't see Ukraine being supplied with sub-par hardware, unless it was deemed "surplus" and thus not on the same level as arms we would use.
To the average person, an item tends to undergo a mental depreciation over time. We might look at a computer and think "Oh, that was bought three years ago! It's out of date; I need a new one." The military looks at a three year old computer and says "It is still operating within written specifications; use it." They would say the same about the brand-new computer we would buy to replace it.
I never claimed Putin was dumb.
Intentionally, I'm sure you didn't. But the fact is, you do tend to attribute certain characteristics to Putin that would equate to "dumb" if applied to anyone else.
It has been said many times that Putin wants to absorb Ukraine back into Russia, in some attempt to restore the USSR. But if that is true, he went about it all wrong! He launched a very surgical invasion with a relatively small number of highly mobile troops. I'm sure there are many school age children sitting at home right now who would know better than that. An attempt to take a country over is accomplished with a sudden, massive invasion that essentially mows across the country taking everything as it goes, perhaps concentrating on communications and industrial centers along the way. Putin went in and ignored those; he directly attacked to disable military response centers and left other areas intact. His efforts seem to have specific target sites instead of targeting the country itself.
That would be a dumb move. Therefore, Putin was not trying to overtake Ukraine. Putin must have invaded for a specific purpose. We may not know for sure what that purpose was, but we can easily see that there was a specific military objective.
Anything else is the same as calling Putin "dumb," whether it is meant to be intentional or not.
my support for Ukraine isn't unconditional. If Russian forces are evicted from Ukraine, other issues will arise from the rubble.
Agreed, but that sentiment is too little too late. It ignores the fact that Russia has invaded and that the conflict is ongoing. Had enough people held that sentiment prior to the invasion, it is quite possible there would have been no invasion.
There are certain lines that, once crossed, cannot be uncrossed. Military action is one of those. Russia cannot "un-invade" Ukraine; it's simply not possible. If they pulled out now, the opposite effect that you describe would happen: the propaganda machine would focus on all the damage that Russia caused and completely ignore any corruption in Ukraine. The result would be more trouble for Russia than they would have had if they had never invaded. I think Putin probably knows that by now.
So what is the benefit to Russia for withdrawing? I see none. I was always taught that if one wished to get a person to do something, one's best course of action was to make it attractive to do so. We no longer do that. Russia has no real choice: if they withdraw, they lose all chance of completing whatever mission Putin had in mind; if they do not withdraw the fighting continues.
That's not how one stops a military action; that is precisely how one maintains a military action. Ergo, the West is actually trying to keep Russia from withdrawing from Ukraine, despite what Mr. Know-it-all No-pants says during the evening news. The real question we should be asking is "Why?"
Russian atrocities and disregard for civilian causalities are how Ukrainians perceive their Russian occupiers. There is no subtext to that situation.
I am not convinced of that. Mr. Know-it-all No-pants may be, but I am not.
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
I agree concerning China corning the supply of rare earth minerals.
Moreover, I will leave my comments concerning the hazardous bureaucracy in U.S. defence circles for another time. But as your comments indicate, that situation warrants further attention.
But the idea of Russia launching a surgical invasion of Ukraine is absurd. I was among the people who grossly overestimated Russian military competency. Although I never brought into Russia would win the war in three days narrative. To begin with, I found the sheer levels of Russian military incompetence in Ukraine challenging to fathom.
Rather than specific targets, Russian forces invaded Ukraine across a broad front. Ironically, in that sense, the Russians copied the German approach to Operation Barbarossa. Also, the Russians share Germany's (WW1 and WW2) lack of strategic thought and moral compass, but they lack the occasional Prussian/German burst of tactical and operational brilliance.
The war in Ukraine isn't a business transaction, so only Ukrainian military action defeat Russian forces. I don't trust mainstream media narratives, but that is for another discussion. But in this case, Putin isn't a rational actor, and his motivations are in the open.
Returning to the focus of this topic: The legacy of the war in Ukraine is yet to unfold. (I mentioned some of the potential issues elsewhere on ATS). But the changes to global energy supplies and markets will remain.
I agree concerning China corning the supply of rare earth minerals.
Moreover, I will leave my comments concerning the hazardous bureaucracy in U.S. defence circles for another time. But as your comments indicate, that situation warrants further attention.
But the idea of Russia launching a surgical invasion of Ukraine is absurd. I was among the people who grossly overestimated Russian military competency. Although I never brought into Russia would win the war in three days narrative. To begin with, I found the sheer levels of Russian military incompetence in Ukraine challenging to fathom.
Rather than specific targets, Russian forces invaded Ukraine across a broad front. Ironically, in that sense, the Russians copied the German approach to Operation Barbarossa. Also, the Russians share Germany's (WW1 and WW2) lack of strategic thought and moral compass, but they lack the occasional Prussian/German burst of tactical and operational brilliance.
The war in Ukraine isn't a business transaction, so only Ukrainian military action defeat Russian forces. I don't trust mainstream media narratives, but that is for another discussion. But in this case, Putin isn't a rational actor, and his motivations are in the open.
Returning to the focus of this topic: The legacy of the war in Ukraine is yet to unfold. (I mentioned some of the potential issues elsewhere on ATS). But the changes to global energy supplies and markets will remain.
a reply to: xpert11
That is exactly what I am referring to. When actions show themselves to be absurd, they are not meant to accomplish what one is thinking they are meant to accomplish.
All actions have intentions. Putin did not wake up one morning and think "This looks like a good day to invade Ukraine for the hell of it." No, Putin had a purpose in invading; all countries who invade others do so with a purpose in mind. That purpose determines the actions taken. If the USA wanted to invade and conquer Mexico, they would use a different set of actions than if they wanted to locate and forcefully extradite a drug cartel in Mexico.
The actions make no sense to the goal. Therefore, the goal is not correct. Find the actual goal and the actions will make perfect sense.
Or, we can assume that all those decades of Cold War concern and worries over Russian military capability were just talk and Russia is actually too inept to figure out which way to point a gun. That's what Mr. Know-it-all No-pants says is true.
Now, yes. I was speaking of what happened and could have been done before the invasion. Once that line was crossed, it cannot be un-crossed.
However, diplomacy can still work if it were tried. Many military actions throughout history have been stopped by a diplomatic solution (albeit admittedly accompanied by military threat). I think it is telling that we, the West, are exercising the exact opposite of diplomacy.
Yes, it will, and that has been my position since this thread started. We have created a new alliance between Russia and China based on energy by forcing Russia to deal exclusively with China. China will do whatever it feels is beneficial to its interests, including assisting Russia in building more China-specific infrastructure to strengthen this alliance. In the long term, this will likely dissolve into more conflict, but not before a lot of people freeze to death from a lack of energy.
Another line that we crossed and that cannot be un-crossed.
TheRedneck
I was among the people who grossly overestimated Russian military competency. Although I never brought into Russia would win the war in three days narrative. To begin with, I found the sheer levels of Russian military incompetence in Ukraine challenging to fathom.
That is exactly what I am referring to. When actions show themselves to be absurd, they are not meant to accomplish what one is thinking they are meant to accomplish.
All actions have intentions. Putin did not wake up one morning and think "This looks like a good day to invade Ukraine for the hell of it." No, Putin had a purpose in invading; all countries who invade others do so with a purpose in mind. That purpose determines the actions taken. If the USA wanted to invade and conquer Mexico, they would use a different set of actions than if they wanted to locate and forcefully extradite a drug cartel in Mexico.
The actions make no sense to the goal. Therefore, the goal is not correct. Find the actual goal and the actions will make perfect sense.
Or, we can assume that all those decades of Cold War concern and worries over Russian military capability were just talk and Russia is actually too inept to figure out which way to point a gun. That's what Mr. Know-it-all No-pants says is true.
The war in Ukraine isn't a business transaction, so only Ukrainian military action defeat Russian forces.
Now, yes. I was speaking of what happened and could have been done before the invasion. Once that line was crossed, it cannot be un-crossed.
However, diplomacy can still work if it were tried. Many military actions throughout history have been stopped by a diplomatic solution (albeit admittedly accompanied by military threat). I think it is telling that we, the West, are exercising the exact opposite of diplomacy.
Returning to the focus of this topic: The legacy of the war in Ukraine is yet to unfold. (I mentioned some of the potential issues elsewhere on ATS). But the changes to global energy supplies and markets will remain.
Yes, it will, and that has been my position since this thread started. We have created a new alliance between Russia and China based on energy by forcing Russia to deal exclusively with China. China will do whatever it feels is beneficial to its interests, including assisting Russia in building more China-specific infrastructure to strengthen this alliance. In the long term, this will likely dissolve into more conflict, but not before a lot of people freeze to death from a lack of energy.
Another line that we crossed and that cannot be un-crossed.
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
When judging their battlefield performances, the Russian military's level of institutional corruption requires consideration. Particularly in logistics, there is a cross-over between corruption and military competency.
Viewing Russia's aims in Ukraine through a rational lens isn't a useful analytical tool. Putin's thinking doesn't operate on that basis. Also, there is no magic wand that shifts markers for military successes. To borrow from Harold Macmillan, "Events, dear world, events sometimes overtake wartime military and civilian decision-makers."
Nor does Russia have access to the personnel the Warsaw Pact provided the Soviets in Eastern Europe. So the post-Cold War Russian Army missed out on the concentration of forces but retained poor logistical systems. But the point of view of the hot war that never occurred is examined elsewhere.
If Russia never furthered their military aggression in Ukraine, Western Countries wouldn't have imposed sanctions on Russian energy. So Western Governments aren't in the drives seat concerning Russia's growing ties with China.
When judging their battlefield performances, the Russian military's level of institutional corruption requires consideration. Particularly in logistics, there is a cross-over between corruption and military competency.
Viewing Russia's aims in Ukraine through a rational lens isn't a useful analytical tool. Putin's thinking doesn't operate on that basis. Also, there is no magic wand that shifts markers for military successes. To borrow from Harold Macmillan, "Events, dear world, events sometimes overtake wartime military and civilian decision-makers."
Nor does Russia have access to the personnel the Warsaw Pact provided the Soviets in Eastern Europe. So the post-Cold War Russian Army missed out on the concentration of forces but retained poor logistical systems. But the point of view of the hot war that never occurred is examined elsewhere.
If Russia never furthered their military aggression in Ukraine, Western Countries wouldn't have imposed sanctions on Russian energy. So Western Governments aren't in the drives seat concerning Russia's growing ties with China.
a reply to: xpert11
That is stating that the Russian people purposely elected a madman. I would consider that to be a pretty offensive statement (especially since it can be applied to the USA now as well).
MacMillan was stating that military goals can change as new circumstances present themselves. That is a far stretch from my statements.
Every military maneuver happens for a reason. That reason determines what maneuver will be executed. If the circumstances change, the military objective may change with it and that of course would lead to different actions. It sounds like you are saying that every offensive maneuver, regardless of objective, must follow some set operation... and that is simply untrue.
Besides, if Russia's military is that inept, why is it taking US military aid and billions upon billions of dollars to fight them off? I don't think we spent this much running Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard out of Kuwait! So is Russia inept and clueless, meaning they are so easily defeated, or does Ukraine need all this US support to battle them back? You cant have that both ways; the choices are mutually exclusive,
That is demonstrably false.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was cancelled after completion by Germany on February 22, 2022. Biden stated he thought it should be cancelled nearly a month earlier. That was a direct sanction on Russian energy.
Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, two days later.
We live in a causal universe, regardless of what Russia does. Surely you aren't going to dispute that?
TheRedneck
Viewing Russia's aims in Ukraine through a rational lens isn't a useful analytical tool. Putin's thinking doesn't operate on that basis.
That is stating that the Russian people purposely elected a madman. I would consider that to be a pretty offensive statement (especially since it can be applied to the USA now as well).
Also, there is no magic wand that shifts markers for military successes. To borrow from Harold Macmillan, "Events, dear world, events sometimes overtake wartime military and civilian decision-makers."
MacMillan was stating that military goals can change as new circumstances present themselves. That is a far stretch from my statements.
Every military maneuver happens for a reason. That reason determines what maneuver will be executed. If the circumstances change, the military objective may change with it and that of course would lead to different actions. It sounds like you are saying that every offensive maneuver, regardless of objective, must follow some set operation... and that is simply untrue.
Besides, if Russia's military is that inept, why is it taking US military aid and billions upon billions of dollars to fight them off? I don't think we spent this much running Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard out of Kuwait! So is Russia inept and clueless, meaning they are so easily defeated, or does Ukraine need all this US support to battle them back? You cant have that both ways; the choices are mutually exclusive,
If Russia never furthered their military aggression in Ukraine, Western Countries wouldn't have imposed sanctions on Russian energy.
That is demonstrably false.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was cancelled after completion by Germany on February 22, 2022. Biden stated he thought it should be cancelled nearly a month earlier. That was a direct sanction on Russian energy.
Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, two days later.
We live in a causal universe, regardless of what Russia does. Surely you aren't going to dispute that?
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
Russia first seized Ukrainian territory in 2014. So in real terms, the media's narrative surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine starting this year is false. But I don't wish to raise that point every time I comment on the war in Ukraine.
Concerning the U.S. and international military aid forms part of Ukraine's diverse and national war effort, I will save my thoughts concerning historical diversity for another time. The same applies to combined arms and other matters.
Also, the character of military ineptitude doesn't ensure the latest variation of the war will be over by Christmas.
Hopefully, how logistics is an enabler of military operations supports my point.
Consider the following comparison:
There are two bottles with small cracks at the bottom. One bottle contains twice the amount of water, and both start leaking simultaneously. The bottle with less water represents Russian forces in Ukraine. But the other bottle represents Ukrainian effort's during their current offensive actions.
The Russians either slow the flow or drain the water quicker than the Ukrainians. Neither option overcomes how the Russian started with less water from the outcome. My comparison doesn't factor in difficulties concerning pouring in additional water after the leakage (logistical sustainment) and the time to acquire and store the water before usage (roughly obtaining and stockpiling supplies).
Providing there are drips of water, Russian forces might maintain combat operations. But eventually, their disadvantages are the seeds of defeat.
Moreover, terms like military ineptitude are blank cheques. But until developments in Ukraine, they held little interest outside military history circles. So my efforts concerning the related subject matter are an effort to provide reasonable explanations without losing the reader's interest or going too far off-topic.
Moreover, please forgive my above comparison and if I appear dismissive of the points you raised.
Russia first seized Ukrainian territory in 2014. So in real terms, the media's narrative surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine starting this year is false. But I don't wish to raise that point every time I comment on the war in Ukraine.
Concerning the U.S. and international military aid forms part of Ukraine's diverse and national war effort, I will save my thoughts concerning historical diversity for another time. The same applies to combined arms and other matters.
Also, the character of military ineptitude doesn't ensure the latest variation of the war will be over by Christmas.
Hopefully, how logistics is an enabler of military operations supports my point.
Consider the following comparison:
There are two bottles with small cracks at the bottom. One bottle contains twice the amount of water, and both start leaking simultaneously. The bottle with less water represents Russian forces in Ukraine. But the other bottle represents Ukrainian effort's during their current offensive actions.
The Russians either slow the flow or drain the water quicker than the Ukrainians. Neither option overcomes how the Russian started with less water from the outcome. My comparison doesn't factor in difficulties concerning pouring in additional water after the leakage (logistical sustainment) and the time to acquire and store the water before usage (roughly obtaining and stockpiling supplies).
Providing there are drips of water, Russian forces might maintain combat operations. But eventually, their disadvantages are the seeds of defeat.
Moreover, terms like military ineptitude are blank cheques. But until developments in Ukraine, they held little interest outside military history circles. So my efforts concerning the related subject matter are an effort to provide reasonable explanations without losing the reader's interest or going too far off-topic.
Moreover, please forgive my above comparison and if I appear dismissive of the points you raised.
a reply to: xpert11
Crimea voted to become a satellite of Russia and leave Ukraine.
But moreover, that does not explain away the timing of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline cancellation. In 2014, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was already under construction. Why was that construction not halted then? Why continue to let Russia invest in a pipeline that was known to never be allowed to carry gas?
If anything, that underscores the reasoning behind a Russian invasion of Ukraine, if the EU purposely and maliciously tricked Russia into expending resources for no possible gain. We're talking 8 years of continuous fraud on an International level here! That doesn't excuse Germany's actions... it implicates them!
None of your explanation explains the change in propaganda concerning Russian military capability.
The USA, like every other military worth its salt, is constantly watching every other military. We have operatives whose sole purpose is to locate and report on military readiness and military capacity of every other country in the world. Russia does the same thing. We can't test fly a single-engine Cessna without someone in Russia watching it, and neither can they. That's why military operations are such a closely guarded secret. When (if?) Artemis I finally manages to get off the ground, despite it being a purely scientific research mission (so far as we know), there will still be Russian eyes watching every correction and flight wobble for signs of any military information.
There were no surprises in Ukraine, at least not to the military.
Now you are telling me that despite all the concern over Russian military capability over the last 60 years, suddenly we realized that Russia is incapable of fighting back a tiny country like Ukraine? And still, the only way Ukraine has any chance to avoid absolute destruction from this inept, sub-par, laughable excuse for a Russian military is to have all these US weapons and billions in US aid? That narrative simply does not add up. Either Russia is incapable of defeating Ukraine or Ukraine needs the assistance. It cannot be both.
Someone is lying to us.
Perhaps. But those blank checks have been and are being written, on a continuous basis, by Mr. Know-it-all No-pants. That's what we are being told, night after night after night. I see two possibilities that might exist here:
I cannot support either side.
This is one of the best debates I have seen to date on the issue; most break down quickly into cults of personality or direct insults. There is nothing to forgive; you have my respect if not my agreement.
TheRedneck
Russia first seized Ukrainian territory in 2014.
Crimea voted to become a satellite of Russia and leave Ukraine.
But moreover, that does not explain away the timing of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline cancellation. In 2014, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was already under construction. Why was that construction not halted then? Why continue to let Russia invest in a pipeline that was known to never be allowed to carry gas?
If anything, that underscores the reasoning behind a Russian invasion of Ukraine, if the EU purposely and maliciously tricked Russia into expending resources for no possible gain. We're talking 8 years of continuous fraud on an International level here! That doesn't excuse Germany's actions... it implicates them!
Concerning the U.S. and international military aid forms part of Ukraine's diverse and national war effort, I will save my thoughts concerning historical diversity for another time. The same applies to combined arms and other matters.
None of your explanation explains the change in propaganda concerning Russian military capability.
The USA, like every other military worth its salt, is constantly watching every other military. We have operatives whose sole purpose is to locate and report on military readiness and military capacity of every other country in the world. Russia does the same thing. We can't test fly a single-engine Cessna without someone in Russia watching it, and neither can they. That's why military operations are such a closely guarded secret. When (if?) Artemis I finally manages to get off the ground, despite it being a purely scientific research mission (so far as we know), there will still be Russian eyes watching every correction and flight wobble for signs of any military information.
There were no surprises in Ukraine, at least not to the military.
Now you are telling me that despite all the concern over Russian military capability over the last 60 years, suddenly we realized that Russia is incapable of fighting back a tiny country like Ukraine? And still, the only way Ukraine has any chance to avoid absolute destruction from this inept, sub-par, laughable excuse for a Russian military is to have all these US weapons and billions in US aid? That narrative simply does not add up. Either Russia is incapable of defeating Ukraine or Ukraine needs the assistance. It cannot be both.
Someone is lying to us.
Moreover, terms like military ineptitude are blank cheques.
Perhaps. But those blank checks have been and are being written, on a continuous basis, by Mr. Know-it-all No-pants. That's what we are being told, night after night after night. I see two possibilities that might exist here:
- Russia does indeed have a formidable military, which threatens
Ukraine (which we know for a fact has been the hub of a massive money-laundering operation for the West recently) and therefore could expose political
misdeeds and crimes. Thus, we are sending all this hardware and treasure to ensure that the skeletons in Ukraine's closet remain in that closet.
-----or------
- Russia is indeed embroiled in more than they expected and is being slowly defeated by Ukrainian resistance, in which case all those billions of dollars are simply being laundered in an attempt to take advantage of the turmoil.
I cannot support either side.
please forgive my above comparison and if I appear dismissive of the points you raised.
This is one of the best debates I have seen to date on the issue; most break down quickly into cults of personality or direct insults. There is nothing to forgive; you have my respect if not my agreement.
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
Putin borrowed from Stalin's playbook for Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. If I recall correctly, the Soviets employed propaganda and rigged referendums to justify their occupation of the Baltic States in 1940. The short-lived and doomed Soviet-Nazi Pact set the foundations for the Soviet Union's borders from 1945 - 1989.
Who overinflated or misunderstood the Russian military's capabilities and why?
People who aim to prevent cutbacks in the U.S. defence budget might have exaggerated Russia's threat to Western Europe. As a result, an accurate assessment might not have justified related funding.
Although the war in Ukraine is primarily land and air power affair, the commentators who draw connections to the impact of related events on China potentially invading Taiwan are wildly off base. The Geographical differences between Ukraine and Taiwan are stark, and so is the broader scope for that scenario.
Another possibility is failings within the U.S. military and civilian intel communities. In short, a lack or absence of people in those arenas who speak Russian, understand Russian culture, are perhaps 2nd generation immigrants from Russia, and specialise in the Russian armed forces. Also, note how expertise was missing in the lead-up to the Iraq War and WMDs debacle.
How such an appalling situation developed has slipped under the radar. But numerous hammer blows to are worth highlighting and warrant further investigation. During the Carter administration, the CIA under Admiral Stansfield Turner ditched human intel in favour of satellites and other technological means for intel gathering. The glaring flaw in that approach is the removal of people's ability to confirm or disagree with other sources of information and analysis.
George Tenet's time as Director of the CIA saw the disastrous politicisation concerning intel functions and sharing. The arguments made by Colin Powell during his 2003 address to the UN Security Council are one of the legacies of those occurrences.
John Brennan, Obama's CIA appointee, is a sociopath whose post-CIA Director career was built upon perpetrating lies concerning Trump - Russia Gate. The complete fallout from his time at the CIA remains unknown.
Also, after the Soviet Union fell, a fairy tale concerning the end of world history/conventional wars took hold. From the Clinton admin onward, foreign policy was an afterthought and no longer statecraft. The focus on rogue states (North Korea and Iran) and post 9-11 terrorism did nothing to consider the historical characteristics of Russia and warfare.
Germany's wild ride entailed failed military expansionism in the world wars. After reunification and decades of neglecting their military. Germany's next step was appeasing and enabling Russia's actions in Ukraine. (I have skipped over West Germany's role in the Cold War for the sake of time and space). The defacto coalition of those who opposed nuclear power in Germany and vested commercial interests in Russian energy played into Putin's hands.
Notable, Ukrainian correctly gauged Russian military weakness and planned accordingly in 2014 - 2022. But that doesn't preclude the capabilities the Ukrainians require to evict Russian forces from their country. So international military assistance to Ukraine involves supplying or supplementing the tools to smash Russian forces.
Also, your argument doesn't factor in potential improvements in the Ukrainian armed forces' implementing hard-won lessons learned, so their battlefield performance improves.
I think they might display the same levels of improvement demonstrated by the U.S. Army between Operation Torch and D-day.
Moreover, Ukraine's political leaders understood how Russia's 2022 escalation presented an existential threat to their country, so they united behind Zelenskyy. Also, the Ukrainian people are motivated to defeat the Russians matches that situation. But your point concerning corruption is worth noting in the context of post-war reconstruction.
Having failed to achieve European domination via military means, Germany achieved that goal with economic means via the EU. Merkel's chief foreign policy was to prevent Brexit from occurring with other EU members. Unfortunately, Merkel was backed up by sick cancer, known as the mainstream media. Moreover, those media outlets proclaimed Merkle as the leader of the free world and dismissed the threat posed by Russia in Crimea.
Putin borrowed from Stalin's playbook for Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. If I recall correctly, the Soviets employed propaganda and rigged referendums to justify their occupation of the Baltic States in 1940. The short-lived and doomed Soviet-Nazi Pact set the foundations for the Soviet Union's borders from 1945 - 1989.
Who overinflated or misunderstood the Russian military's capabilities and why?
People who aim to prevent cutbacks in the U.S. defence budget might have exaggerated Russia's threat to Western Europe. As a result, an accurate assessment might not have justified related funding.
Although the war in Ukraine is primarily land and air power affair, the commentators who draw connections to the impact of related events on China potentially invading Taiwan are wildly off base. The Geographical differences between Ukraine and Taiwan are stark, and so is the broader scope for that scenario.
Another possibility is failings within the U.S. military and civilian intel communities. In short, a lack or absence of people in those arenas who speak Russian, understand Russian culture, are perhaps 2nd generation immigrants from Russia, and specialise in the Russian armed forces. Also, note how expertise was missing in the lead-up to the Iraq War and WMDs debacle.
How such an appalling situation developed has slipped under the radar. But numerous hammer blows to are worth highlighting and warrant further investigation. During the Carter administration, the CIA under Admiral Stansfield Turner ditched human intel in favour of satellites and other technological means for intel gathering. The glaring flaw in that approach is the removal of people's ability to confirm or disagree with other sources of information and analysis.
George Tenet's time as Director of the CIA saw the disastrous politicisation concerning intel functions and sharing. The arguments made by Colin Powell during his 2003 address to the UN Security Council are one of the legacies of those occurrences.
John Brennan, Obama's CIA appointee, is a sociopath whose post-CIA Director career was built upon perpetrating lies concerning Trump - Russia Gate. The complete fallout from his time at the CIA remains unknown.
Also, after the Soviet Union fell, a fairy tale concerning the end of world history/conventional wars took hold. From the Clinton admin onward, foreign policy was an afterthought and no longer statecraft. The focus on rogue states (North Korea and Iran) and post 9-11 terrorism did nothing to consider the historical characteristics of Russia and warfare.
Germany's wild ride entailed failed military expansionism in the world wars. After reunification and decades of neglecting their military. Germany's next step was appeasing and enabling Russia's actions in Ukraine. (I have skipped over West Germany's role in the Cold War for the sake of time and space). The defacto coalition of those who opposed nuclear power in Germany and vested commercial interests in Russian energy played into Putin's hands.
Notable, Ukrainian correctly gauged Russian military weakness and planned accordingly in 2014 - 2022. But that doesn't preclude the capabilities the Ukrainians require to evict Russian forces from their country. So international military assistance to Ukraine involves supplying or supplementing the tools to smash Russian forces.
Also, your argument doesn't factor in potential improvements in the Ukrainian armed forces' implementing hard-won lessons learned, so their battlefield performance improves.
I think they might display the same levels of improvement demonstrated by the U.S. Army between Operation Torch and D-day.
Moreover, Ukraine's political leaders understood how Russia's 2022 escalation presented an existential threat to their country, so they united behind Zelenskyy. Also, the Ukrainian people are motivated to defeat the Russians matches that situation. But your point concerning corruption is worth noting in the context of post-war reconstruction.
Having failed to achieve European domination via military means, Germany achieved that goal with economic means via the EU. Merkel's chief foreign policy was to prevent Brexit from occurring with other EU members. Unfortunately, Merkel was backed up by sick cancer, known as the mainstream media. Moreover, those media outlets proclaimed Merkle as the leader of the free world and dismissed the threat posed by Russia in Crimea.
a reply to: xpert11
I feel the hysteria over the Cold War may have been exaggerated for military budgetary reasons, so on that point we are not far off. However, I do not believe it was totally unwarranted. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (which you refer to as the Soviet-Nazi Pact) was the cause of tensions between the USA and USSR after WWII. It was more than a foundation for geographic boundaries (although it did include those)... it was primarily a non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR to try and not repeat the devastation both countries had suffered under WWI. The geographic boundaries were established as a compromise to end German/USSR conflicts over disputed territory.
At the time the Cold War started, the USSR had similar military capabilities to the USA. The USA did not trust Russia because it had made that pact with Germany just prior to WWII and we thus saw them as questionable allies. In reality, the pact was an attempt to prevent WWII... a failed attempt, to be sure, but an attempt nonetheless. Military leaders tend to view the world through the eyes of conflict; that's their job. Governments are ideally there to restrain military ambition (which is the single largest advantage of a democratic state).
We have an old saying around here: "When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail." When all one does is based on conflict, everything tends to be view through the lens of conflict.
I agree. The closest real parallel is Crimea, and to accurately draw that parallel one must compare Crimea/Ukraine to Taiwan/China, not Crimea/Russia to Taiwan/China.
I do not see the oft-touted Taiwan invasion happening soon. Taiwan has been Westernized. While China sees that as an atrocity and an affront to their claims and culture, the USA sees Taiwan (appropriately) as a vital strategic asset that must remain autonomous. China does not want war with the USA at this time any more than we want war with China at this time.
Should that dynamic change, all bets are off. But for now, I tend to disregard most of the claims about Taiwan being invaded by China.
I saw that as more of relief that a long-standing threat was over. I remember the days of nuclear war drills: the alarms would go off, the teachers' faces would turn white, and we would all hide under those "nuclear-blast-proof" school desks (which wouldn't protect one from a good spitball, but somehow would protect us all from another Hiroshima disaster). It was a trying time, when almost everyone lived with that nagging little fear in the back of their heads.
In hindsight, I don't think the USSR ever had any sights set on the USA. It was our own paranoia over that Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact that led to our aggressive stance against the USSR and their response of retaliation against our perceived aggression that led to MAD and the Cold War.
When the Berlin Wall fell, it was a symbol of victory over that (barely existent) threat. People were tired. Any mention of returning to the Cold War era was political suicide. But old memories die hard... even after the end of the Cold War, many people still have misgivings about trusting Russia.
It seems to take a LOT of those resources.
I will grant that Russia has one deficit in their military capability: resources. A military, especially a modern military, is extremely expensive to maintain; just look how much we spend on ours. Russia is economically a very poor country, even if it is improving in that regard. They cannot put the amount of financial resources toward a military operation that we can. Putin has even acknowledged that on multiple occasions.
There was a thread a while back, which I doubt I could locate now, that claimed Putin had threatened the USA with nuclear weapons in a speech. I listened to the speech. While Putin speaks Russian, he did have an interpreter. Putin said nothing of the sort! What he said was that a war between Russia and NATO would serve no useful purpose and was not wanted because Russia could not win such a war, and then he added that despite that, Russia would never allow itself to be overtaken... even if that meant the use of nuclear weapons. That is actually a very sober and reflective position... especially coming from a "madman."
I never replied... I transcribed the speech to do so, but by the time I finished, the thread had already died off.
Technologically, Russia has always been on par with the USA; during my study in Control System Theory (my post-grad major), Russian influence was cited more than American influence. The Russian people, as a rule, are many things: arrogant, hot-tempered, sometimes violent, proud, stubborn... but also quite intelligent and resourceful.
The problem plaguing Russia right now is money. They have the ability to match us step-by-step in military technology, but they do not have the money to do so. That is why their present goals center around improving their economic standing.
Ukraine does nothing to advance those goals; to Russia, it is an unwelcome interruption that I don't think they really wanted to execute at this time. Germany made it economically necessary by shutting down first the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and now the Nord Stream pipeline. They forced Russia's hand, and Russia responded.
As to their methodology, yes, it may seem somewhat Stalin-esque. That's because Russia is limited in modern military hardware; they use what they have. I do not think that is something that we can simply laugh at and claim superiority over... as I said the Russians are quite resourceful and quite intelligent. They know full well what they're doing.
As for Putin... one can call him a "madman" or "delusional" or "inept" all one wants. The surest way to lose a war is to underestimate one's enemy.
>> continued >>
Who overinflated or misunderstood the Russian military's capabilities and why?
People who aim to prevent cutbacks in the U.S. defence budget might have exaggerated Russia's threat to Western Europe. As a result, an accurate assessment might not have justified related funding.
I feel the hysteria over the Cold War may have been exaggerated for military budgetary reasons, so on that point we are not far off. However, I do not believe it was totally unwarranted. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (which you refer to as the Soviet-Nazi Pact) was the cause of tensions between the USA and USSR after WWII. It was more than a foundation for geographic boundaries (although it did include those)... it was primarily a non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR to try and not repeat the devastation both countries had suffered under WWI. The geographic boundaries were established as a compromise to end German/USSR conflicts over disputed territory.
At the time the Cold War started, the USSR had similar military capabilities to the USA. The USA did not trust Russia because it had made that pact with Germany just prior to WWII and we thus saw them as questionable allies. In reality, the pact was an attempt to prevent WWII... a failed attempt, to be sure, but an attempt nonetheless. Military leaders tend to view the world through the eyes of conflict; that's their job. Governments are ideally there to restrain military ambition (which is the single largest advantage of a democratic state).
We have an old saying around here: "When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail." When all one does is based on conflict, everything tends to be view through the lens of conflict.
Although the war in Ukraine is primarily land and air power affair, the commentators who draw connections to the impact of related events on China potentially invading Taiwan are wildly off base.
I agree. The closest real parallel is Crimea, and to accurately draw that parallel one must compare Crimea/Ukraine to Taiwan/China, not Crimea/Russia to Taiwan/China.
I do not see the oft-touted Taiwan invasion happening soon. Taiwan has been Westernized. While China sees that as an atrocity and an affront to their claims and culture, the USA sees Taiwan (appropriately) as a vital strategic asset that must remain autonomous. China does not want war with the USA at this time any more than we want war with China at this time.
Should that dynamic change, all bets are off. But for now, I tend to disregard most of the claims about Taiwan being invaded by China.
after the Soviet Union fell, a fairy tale concerning the end of world history/conventional wars took hold.
I saw that as more of relief that a long-standing threat was over. I remember the days of nuclear war drills: the alarms would go off, the teachers' faces would turn white, and we would all hide under those "nuclear-blast-proof" school desks (which wouldn't protect one from a good spitball, but somehow would protect us all from another Hiroshima disaster). It was a trying time, when almost everyone lived with that nagging little fear in the back of their heads.
In hindsight, I don't think the USSR ever had any sights set on the USA. It was our own paranoia over that Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact that led to our aggressive stance against the USSR and their response of retaliation against our perceived aggression that led to MAD and the Cold War.
When the Berlin Wall fell, it was a symbol of victory over that (barely existent) threat. People were tired. Any mention of returning to the Cold War era was political suicide. But old memories die hard... even after the end of the Cold War, many people still have misgivings about trusting Russia.
Notable, Ukrainian correctly gauged Russian military weakness and planned accordingly in 2014 - 2022. But that doesn't preclude the capabilities the Ukrainians require to evict Russian forces from their country. So international military assistance to Ukraine involves supplying or supplementing the tools to smash Russian forces.
It seems to take a LOT of those resources.
I will grant that Russia has one deficit in their military capability: resources. A military, especially a modern military, is extremely expensive to maintain; just look how much we spend on ours. Russia is economically a very poor country, even if it is improving in that regard. They cannot put the amount of financial resources toward a military operation that we can. Putin has even acknowledged that on multiple occasions.
There was a thread a while back, which I doubt I could locate now, that claimed Putin had threatened the USA with nuclear weapons in a speech. I listened to the speech. While Putin speaks Russian, he did have an interpreter. Putin said nothing of the sort! What he said was that a war between Russia and NATO would serve no useful purpose and was not wanted because Russia could not win such a war, and then he added that despite that, Russia would never allow itself to be overtaken... even if that meant the use of nuclear weapons. That is actually a very sober and reflective position... especially coming from a "madman."
I never replied... I transcribed the speech to do so, but by the time I finished, the thread had already died off.
Technologically, Russia has always been on par with the USA; during my study in Control System Theory (my post-grad major), Russian influence was cited more than American influence. The Russian people, as a rule, are many things: arrogant, hot-tempered, sometimes violent, proud, stubborn... but also quite intelligent and resourceful.
The problem plaguing Russia right now is money. They have the ability to match us step-by-step in military technology, but they do not have the money to do so. That is why their present goals center around improving their economic standing.
Ukraine does nothing to advance those goals; to Russia, it is an unwelcome interruption that I don't think they really wanted to execute at this time. Germany made it economically necessary by shutting down first the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and now the Nord Stream pipeline. They forced Russia's hand, and Russia responded.
As to their methodology, yes, it may seem somewhat Stalin-esque. That's because Russia is limited in modern military hardware; they use what they have. I do not think that is something that we can simply laugh at and claim superiority over... as I said the Russians are quite resourceful and quite intelligent. They know full well what they're doing.
As for Putin... one can call him a "madman" or "delusional" or "inept" all one wants. The surest way to lose a war is to underestimate one's enemy.
>> continued >>
>> continued >>
Ukraine has not had time to develop their own high-tech military systems; hence the reason we are sending ours. However, understand that these high-tech weapons also require some training to use them. Ukraine does not have a standing military with sufficient numbers to have people trained and ready. I suspect many of the atrocities we hear of from Russia are indeed errors by Ukrainian forces. I know early on in the war that happened quite a bit. I also know that much of the footage we saw from the conflict was actually re-purposed footage from previous skirmishes (like Crimea) or even military training footage.
As to the Ukrainian people having the solidified will to fight, I cannot discount that possibility. American history itself shows a rag-tag band of poorly-armed colonists who successfully fought for and won independence from the greatest global military superpower in existence at the time. However, in the early days of the conflict, Ukraine was actually stopping citizens at the border and forcibly drafting men of fighting age into service... that doesn't scream "dedication" to me. I wonder how many of those indentured soldiers are still on the front lines, just waiting for a chance to run without being shot by "friendly fire"?
The sad fact is, none of us know what's going on over there. I have seen so many attempts at propaganda that I simply refuse to believe MSM reports now. I look at the movements (even there with a great amount of skepticism) and I try to listen to what leaders on both sides are saying publicly. Somewhere in there I hope there is a speck of truth that can be discerned... but most of it is, as someone we both know of likes to say, "malarkey."
That is a misunderstanding of the two objectives, and it goes back to what I was saying earlier about objectives defining actions. Operation Torch was never intended to achieve what D-Day was intended to do. Operation Torch was an operation to satiate minor goals (from a USA perspective) that were important to some of the Allied countries. Taking North Africa was not going to stop Germany. D-Day, on the other hand, was intended to cripple German forces. Of course the operations progressed differently; they had different objectives. One was moving a chess piece across the board to strengthen a position; the other was a sudden attack on the King's position to set up Checkmate.
That is not the same as a military improvement.
I am woefully uninformed on many of the political intricacies of the EU; to be honest, I never considered it as important to US interests and therefore only trivial information to me. I have looked into the Crimean annexation, however, as that has recently become an issue I consider important globally.
Crimea was originally (post USSR) its own state, the Republic of Crimea. In 1994, the Republic of Crimea was abolished by Ukraine and Crimea was forced into being a part of Ukraine while retaining some autonomy (much like Taiwan is technically a part of China, but retains some autonomy). The disputed annexation in 2014 occurred after public opposition to the current political climate, with Russian backing, and resulted in Crimea declaring independence from Ukraine. Shortly after, Crimea voted to be annexed by Russia.
Now, one can legitimately claim that Russia perhaps exerted undue influence over the population, but I am not convinced of that. If the people of Crimea did indeed vote in a free and fair referendum to leave Ukraine, and since Crimea was forcefully absorbed into Ukraine previously, I am of the mind that the will of the Crimean people should stand. I cannot help but look back on that referendum in Crimea and look at the events of January 6, 2021 without drawing some stark parallels. The prosecution against those who participated on January 6th is, to my mind, an example of an abhorrent and tyrannical government... thus, so would I consider the actions of Ukraine in opposing the liberation of Crimea.
Sometimes others do not agree with us. In cases where the disagreement involves all of us, that is a debatable situation. In cases where it involves only those who disagree with us, I believe we should accept what they choose... because that is what I call "freedom."
TheRedneck
your argument doesn't factor in potential improvements in the Ukrainian armed forces' implementing hard-won lessons learned, so their battlefield performance improves.
Ukraine has not had time to develop their own high-tech military systems; hence the reason we are sending ours. However, understand that these high-tech weapons also require some training to use them. Ukraine does not have a standing military with sufficient numbers to have people trained and ready. I suspect many of the atrocities we hear of from Russia are indeed errors by Ukrainian forces. I know early on in the war that happened quite a bit. I also know that much of the footage we saw from the conflict was actually re-purposed footage from previous skirmishes (like Crimea) or even military training footage.
As to the Ukrainian people having the solidified will to fight, I cannot discount that possibility. American history itself shows a rag-tag band of poorly-armed colonists who successfully fought for and won independence from the greatest global military superpower in existence at the time. However, in the early days of the conflict, Ukraine was actually stopping citizens at the border and forcibly drafting men of fighting age into service... that doesn't scream "dedication" to me. I wonder how many of those indentured soldiers are still on the front lines, just waiting for a chance to run without being shot by "friendly fire"?
The sad fact is, none of us know what's going on over there. I have seen so many attempts at propaganda that I simply refuse to believe MSM reports now. I look at the movements (even there with a great amount of skepticism) and I try to listen to what leaders on both sides are saying publicly. Somewhere in there I hope there is a speck of truth that can be discerned... but most of it is, as someone we both know of likes to say, "malarkey."
I think they might display the same levels of improvement demonstrated by the U.S. Army between Operation Torch and D-day.
That is a misunderstanding of the two objectives, and it goes back to what I was saying earlier about objectives defining actions. Operation Torch was never intended to achieve what D-Day was intended to do. Operation Torch was an operation to satiate minor goals (from a USA perspective) that were important to some of the Allied countries. Taking North Africa was not going to stop Germany. D-Day, on the other hand, was intended to cripple German forces. Of course the operations progressed differently; they had different objectives. One was moving a chess piece across the board to strengthen a position; the other was a sudden attack on the King's position to set up Checkmate.
That is not the same as a military improvement.
Having failed to achieve European domination via military means, Germany achieved that goal with economic means via the EU. Merkel's chief foreign policy was to prevent Brexit from occurring with other EU members. Unfortunately, Merkel was backed up by sick cancer, known as the mainstream media. Moreover, those media outlets proclaimed Merkle as the leader of the free world and dismissed the threat posed by Russia in Crimea.
I am woefully uninformed on many of the political intricacies of the EU; to be honest, I never considered it as important to US interests and therefore only trivial information to me. I have looked into the Crimean annexation, however, as that has recently become an issue I consider important globally.
Crimea was originally (post USSR) its own state, the Republic of Crimea. In 1994, the Republic of Crimea was abolished by Ukraine and Crimea was forced into being a part of Ukraine while retaining some autonomy (much like Taiwan is technically a part of China, but retains some autonomy). The disputed annexation in 2014 occurred after public opposition to the current political climate, with Russian backing, and resulted in Crimea declaring independence from Ukraine. Shortly after, Crimea voted to be annexed by Russia.
Now, one can legitimately claim that Russia perhaps exerted undue influence over the population, but I am not convinced of that. If the people of Crimea did indeed vote in a free and fair referendum to leave Ukraine, and since Crimea was forcefully absorbed into Ukraine previously, I am of the mind that the will of the Crimean people should stand. I cannot help but look back on that referendum in Crimea and look at the events of January 6, 2021 without drawing some stark parallels. The prosecution against those who participated on January 6th is, to my mind, an example of an abhorrent and tyrannical government... thus, so would I consider the actions of Ukraine in opposing the liberation of Crimea.
Sometimes others do not agree with us. In cases where the disagreement involves all of us, that is a debatable situation. In cases where it involves only those who disagree with us, I believe we should accept what they choose... because that is what I call "freedom."
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
Granted, the percentage of conscripts compared to volunteers in the Ukrainian military is unknown. But in light of the existential threat to Ukraine, I suspect the majority of people in the Ukrainian armed forces enlisted. But don't overlook how Ukraine's war effort is taking place at the national level. So people who aren't serving at the front lines will have roles varying from Civil Defence type roles, signals interception and intel, and so on. In comparison, Russia's special military operation in Ukraine is confined to a small segment of its military.
The last time full-scale industrialised warfare occurred was in WW2. But the Axis powers and the allies fought that conflict in the same but unequal settings.
One doesn't require mainstream media narratives to understand the differences between Putin's and Zelensky's leadership styles. Zelensky, Churchill displays concern about how the civilian population is faring and visiting military units near the war zones. But Putin, like, Hitler, is confined to his inner circle, distanced geographically and cognitively from the wars they sparked.
Now compare the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces in a similar light. Corruption, poor pay and conditions, cruelty, and being undervalued as a career are hallmarks of the Russian military. But cometh the hour, Ukraine, with international assistance, is undertaking efforts to train and equip their forces properly. Moreover, those measures display how Ukraine's political and senior military commanders display a duty of care towards their armed forces.
A soliders' knowledge concerning the level of care shown will impact their morale and confidence. So the cumulative impact of the Russian Army's institutional issues has practical and emotional effects. Otherwise, a person's ability to inspire subordinates and others often comes down to intangibles.
None of that suggests I believe individual reports and claims from Ukrainian sources. But that doesn't preclude broader analysis based on my reasonable knowledge of related matters.
I will elaborate on my point concerning the U.S. Army in WW2. The most common comparison is between the debacle at the Battle of Kasserine Pass and the D- day landing's success and Normandy breakout. Improvements in training, understanding of airpower, and equipment from U.S. industrial muscle are textbook explanations for the turnaround.
But, typically, that overlooks improvements in amphibious operations and how to leverage their logistical and firepower advantages in the right circumstances. Those lessons didn't go unheeded by the British, but American citizenry soldiers' contribution and their culture of individualism made the difference.
Indeed, the political and strategic circumstances and motivations behind Operations Torch, Husky, the Italian Campaign and D-day differed vastly. But that, along with the merits and learning from the Italian Campaign, is a discussion for another day.
From the U.S. standpoint, trade interests and the prospect of an EU Army are on the radar. The only reason for an EU military to exist is to prevent another Brexit from happening elsewhere. Moreover, I expect the protectionist tendencies of the U.S. and EU would cause difficulties with potential future economic agreements.
Are you saying you don't recognise Biden's election win as legitimate? But the referendums in Crimea were above board? I want to ensure I understand your argument before commenting further.
Granted, the percentage of conscripts compared to volunteers in the Ukrainian military is unknown. But in light of the existential threat to Ukraine, I suspect the majority of people in the Ukrainian armed forces enlisted. But don't overlook how Ukraine's war effort is taking place at the national level. So people who aren't serving at the front lines will have roles varying from Civil Defence type roles, signals interception and intel, and so on. In comparison, Russia's special military operation in Ukraine is confined to a small segment of its military.
The last time full-scale industrialised warfare occurred was in WW2. But the Axis powers and the allies fought that conflict in the same but unequal settings.
One doesn't require mainstream media narratives to understand the differences between Putin's and Zelensky's leadership styles. Zelensky, Churchill displays concern about how the civilian population is faring and visiting military units near the war zones. But Putin, like, Hitler, is confined to his inner circle, distanced geographically and cognitively from the wars they sparked.
Now compare the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces in a similar light. Corruption, poor pay and conditions, cruelty, and being undervalued as a career are hallmarks of the Russian military. But cometh the hour, Ukraine, with international assistance, is undertaking efforts to train and equip their forces properly. Moreover, those measures display how Ukraine's political and senior military commanders display a duty of care towards their armed forces.
A soliders' knowledge concerning the level of care shown will impact their morale and confidence. So the cumulative impact of the Russian Army's institutional issues has practical and emotional effects. Otherwise, a person's ability to inspire subordinates and others often comes down to intangibles.
None of that suggests I believe individual reports and claims from Ukrainian sources. But that doesn't preclude broader analysis based on my reasonable knowledge of related matters.
I will elaborate on my point concerning the U.S. Army in WW2. The most common comparison is between the debacle at the Battle of Kasserine Pass and the D- day landing's success and Normandy breakout. Improvements in training, understanding of airpower, and equipment from U.S. industrial muscle are textbook explanations for the turnaround.
But, typically, that overlooks improvements in amphibious operations and how to leverage their logistical and firepower advantages in the right circumstances. Those lessons didn't go unheeded by the British, but American citizenry soldiers' contribution and their culture of individualism made the difference.
Indeed, the political and strategic circumstances and motivations behind Operations Torch, Husky, the Italian Campaign and D-day differed vastly. But that, along with the merits and learning from the Italian Campaign, is a discussion for another day.
From the U.S. standpoint, trade interests and the prospect of an EU Army are on the radar. The only reason for an EU military to exist is to prevent another Brexit from happening elsewhere. Moreover, I expect the protectionist tendencies of the U.S. and EU would cause difficulties with potential future economic agreements.
Are you saying you don't recognise Biden's election win as legitimate? But the referendums in Crimea were above board? I want to ensure I understand your argument before commenting further.
a reply to: xpert11
No offense intended, but you are starting to sound like Mr. Know-it-all No-pants again.
Those types of roles are not the type of roles one needs conscripted individuals in; you're talking about skilled roles where loyalty is an absolute requirement. Conscripted soldiers are set to the front lines, not placed in high-profile support positions where personal animosity over their conscription can collapse an entire mission. During the days of the US military draft, only volunteers got those cushy positions. Draftees went to the front lines. Many volunteered after the draft was utilized just because of that fact: their potential for easier service went way up if they volunteered.
That is the point I was making a while back. Russia did not send enough troops for a full takeover; they sent what was needed for the mission. Ergo, the mission was never a takeover of Ukraine.
In the same vein, one cannot accurately compare the results of a small fraction of a military force fighting the entire assets of another country. In such a case, yes, it will be difficult for the smaller forces to prevail. But in this case, after months of fighting, after untold billions of dollars of aid, after untold deployment of military hardware on their behalf, Ukraine still has not managed to expel that small Russian force.
If Putin was so isolated from reality and intent on doing damage in Ukraine, he would have sent in plenty of support forces by now. He hasn't.
Zelensky has little choice but to be involved directly. Ukraine is a much smaller country than Russia; the fighting is much closer to his doorstep. And I doubt he is holding a weapon at the front line; he is doing what every politician does: he's following a narrative. Truth be told, if Zelensky was to ever go near actual fighting, that would be an indication of his ineptitude managing the war. Commanders do not stand in the line of fire.
Putin is staying with the bulk of his military.
Your explanation of Russian morale is straight out of Mr. Know-it-all No-pants' mouth. We do not know how the Russian military treats their soldiers. That description was the propaganda used during the Cold War... and while it may have contained an element of truth under communism, I doubt it does so presently.
As for Ukraine... there are two POWs being held right now who hail from Alabama: Alex Drueke and Andy Huynh. They are presently being held as enemy combatants by Russian forces. I have followed their exploits quite closely, as they are Alabamians... both have publicly stated that their capture was literally aided by Ukrainian forces who refused to provide any protection for their comrades.
And now you want me to believe that Ukrainian forces are well-trained and happy? Everything I have heard is that Ukraine's military is splintered, unable to consistently execute orders, and unconcerned for their countrymen. It seems that the aid from the USA is needed more to control their own forces than to repel Russian forces.
No, I do not.
I didn't say that. I said there were referendums held. The official results are known. I believe I even stated that a debate on legitimacy was possible.
Here's where the two situations diverge for me: in the 2020 election, many allegations were raised by the public against the official narrative (which is that Biden won legitimately). None of those concerns were adequately addressed; all were dismissed out of hand without regard to evidence. The official narrative won out because of official action.
In Crimea, the official narrative is that the referendums were illegitimate (meaning Crimea is actually Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation). We do not even recognize Crimea as a part of Russia to this day, 8 years later. But none of that official story has been able to be verified either way because of official actions.
If there were issues with the Crimean referendums, why does Ukraine not clearly and openly prove that they were illegitimate? Ukraine certainly has the means to do so, especially with the backing of most of the nations on the planet including the USA. The loser in a narrative typically has a much harder time proving their case because they are going against the winner... that happened as expected in the 2020 elections. But it hasn't happened in Crimea even after 8 years. Why?
TheRedneck
No offense intended, but you are starting to sound like Mr. Know-it-all No-pants again.
Granted, the percentage of conscripts compared to volunteers in the Ukrainian military is unknown. But in light of the existential threat to Ukraine, I suspect the majority of people in the Ukrainian armed forces enlisted. But don't overlook how Ukraine's war effort is taking place at the national level. So people who aren't serving at the front lines will have roles varying from Civil Defence type roles, signals interception and intel, and so on.
Those types of roles are not the type of roles one needs conscripted individuals in; you're talking about skilled roles where loyalty is an absolute requirement. Conscripted soldiers are set to the front lines, not placed in high-profile support positions where personal animosity over their conscription can collapse an entire mission. During the days of the US military draft, only volunteers got those cushy positions. Draftees went to the front lines. Many volunteered after the draft was utilized just because of that fact: their potential for easier service went way up if they volunteered.
Russia's special military operation in Ukraine is confined to a small segment of its military.
That is the point I was making a while back. Russia did not send enough troops for a full takeover; they sent what was needed for the mission. Ergo, the mission was never a takeover of Ukraine.
In the same vein, one cannot accurately compare the results of a small fraction of a military force fighting the entire assets of another country. In such a case, yes, it will be difficult for the smaller forces to prevail. But in this case, after months of fighting, after untold billions of dollars of aid, after untold deployment of military hardware on their behalf, Ukraine still has not managed to expel that small Russian force.
If Putin was so isolated from reality and intent on doing damage in Ukraine, he would have sent in plenty of support forces by now. He hasn't.
One doesn't require mainstream media narratives to understand the differences between Putin's and Zelensky's leadership styles.
Zelensky has little choice but to be involved directly. Ukraine is a much smaller country than Russia; the fighting is much closer to his doorstep. And I doubt he is holding a weapon at the front line; he is doing what every politician does: he's following a narrative. Truth be told, if Zelensky was to ever go near actual fighting, that would be an indication of his ineptitude managing the war. Commanders do not stand in the line of fire.
Putin is staying with the bulk of his military.
Corruption, poor pay and conditions, cruelty, and being undervalued as a career are hallmarks of the Russian military. But cometh the hour, Ukraine, with international assistance, is undertaking efforts to train and equip their forces properly. Moreover, those measures display how Ukraine's political and senior military commanders display a duty of care towards their armed forces.
Your explanation of Russian morale is straight out of Mr. Know-it-all No-pants' mouth. We do not know how the Russian military treats their soldiers. That description was the propaganda used during the Cold War... and while it may have contained an element of truth under communism, I doubt it does so presently.
As for Ukraine... there are two POWs being held right now who hail from Alabama: Alex Drueke and Andy Huynh. They are presently being held as enemy combatants by Russian forces. I have followed their exploits quite closely, as they are Alabamians... both have publicly stated that their capture was literally aided by Ukrainian forces who refused to provide any protection for their comrades.
And now you want me to believe that Ukrainian forces are well-trained and happy? Everything I have heard is that Ukraine's military is splintered, unable to consistently execute orders, and unconcerned for their countrymen. It seems that the aid from the USA is needed more to control their own forces than to repel Russian forces.
Are you saying you don't recognise Biden's election win as legitimate?
No, I do not.
But the referendums in Crimea were above board?
I didn't say that. I said there were referendums held. The official results are known. I believe I even stated that a debate on legitimacy was possible.
Here's where the two situations diverge for me: in the 2020 election, many allegations were raised by the public against the official narrative (which is that Biden won legitimately). None of those concerns were adequately addressed; all were dismissed out of hand without regard to evidence. The official narrative won out because of official action.
In Crimea, the official narrative is that the referendums were illegitimate (meaning Crimea is actually Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation). We do not even recognize Crimea as a part of Russia to this day, 8 years later. But none of that official story has been able to be verified either way because of official actions.
If there were issues with the Crimean referendums, why does Ukraine not clearly and openly prove that they were illegitimate? Ukraine certainly has the means to do so, especially with the backing of most of the nations on the planet including the USA. The loser in a narrative typically has a much harder time proving their case because they are going against the winner... that happened as expected in the 2020 elections. But it hasn't happened in Crimea even after 8 years. Why?
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
As i see it Russia was aiming for a shock and awe style lighting strike to decapitate the Ukrainian leadership but failed and I place that failure on training from a number of countries not least the US and UK but the decapitations where in reverse..
how much anger that'll created for the UK & US in particular in Moscow is the something that will have to be dealt with at some point given the scale of losses we are hearing about.. and that'll play into the resource war we are seeing evolve.
But it certainly wasn't shock and awe are even blitzkrieg like and I suspect the scale and scope of the training operation throughout NATO to rebuild the Ukrainian army is a major reason for the recent successes.
on the other side of that the west is learning how to build arm and train a modern volunteer army before it might need to do it for itself..
That is the point I was making a while back. Russia did not send enough troops for a full takeover; they sent what was needed for the mission. Ergo, the mission was never a takeover of Ukraine.
As i see it Russia was aiming for a shock and awe style lighting strike to decapitate the Ukrainian leadership but failed and I place that failure on training from a number of countries not least the US and UK but the decapitations where in reverse..
how much anger that'll created for the UK & US in particular in Moscow is the something that will have to be dealt with at some point given the scale of losses we are hearing about.. and that'll play into the resource war we are seeing evolve.
But it certainly wasn't shock and awe are even blitzkrieg like and I suspect the scale and scope of the training operation throughout NATO to rebuild the Ukrainian army is a major reason for the recent successes.
on the other side of that the west is learning how to build arm and train a modern volunteer army before it might need to do it for itself..
a reply to: nickyw
There again, Russia did not send in a force sufficient to do that, nor did they attack in such a manner. It would have been very easy to send in troops, distract the Ukrainian military, then surgically bomb Kyiv. Instead, Russia sent in a small number of specialized troops that moved in a wandering pattern. That's what a military operation designed to capture sensitive information does.
The actions do not represent what the West is claiming the intent was. There's no way around that.
It's about like saying "TheRedneck must be heading to New York. He started driving south, though, so he obviously can't navigate! Haha! He's such a failure!" when in fact I was heading to Miami the whole time.
TheRedneck
As i see it Russia was aiming for a shock and awe style lighting strike to decapitate the Ukrainian leadership
There again, Russia did not send in a force sufficient to do that, nor did they attack in such a manner. It would have been very easy to send in troops, distract the Ukrainian military, then surgically bomb Kyiv. Instead, Russia sent in a small number of specialized troops that moved in a wandering pattern. That's what a military operation designed to capture sensitive information does.
The actions do not represent what the West is claiming the intent was. There's no way around that.
It's about like saying "TheRedneck must be heading to New York. He started driving south, though, so he obviously can't navigate! Haha! He's such a failure!" when in fact I was heading to Miami the whole time.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: xuenchen
Germany's energy U-turn: Coal instead of gas
Germany gets smart again.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nickyw
As i see it Russia was aiming for a shock and awe style lighting strike to decapitate the Ukrainian leadership
There again, Russia did not send in a force sufficient to do that, nor did they attack in such a manner. It would have been very easy to send in troops, distract the Ukrainian military, then surgically bomb Kyiv. Instead, Russia sent in a small number of specialized troops that moved in a wandering pattern. That's what a military operation designed to capture sensitive information does.
The actions do not represent what the West is claiming the intent was. There's no way around that.
It's about like saying "TheRedneck must be heading to New York. He started driving south, though, so he obviously can't navigate! Haha! He's such a failure!" when in fact I was heading to Miami the whole time.
TheRedneck
Remember when Russia was talking about how the West had set up biolabs in eastern Ukraine? Russia's actions in the early phase of the war were fully consistent with seizing those sites, and probably sending everything back to Russia.
Since then, they're mainly been in a holding pattern protecting the majority-Russian parts of Ukraine, plus their new land bridge to Crimea.
new topics
-
Speaking of Pandemics
General Conspiracies: 54 minutes ago -
Stuck Farmer And His Queue Jumping Spawn
Rant: 1 hours ago -
Paradox of Progress
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 9 hours ago -
Joe Biden gives the USA's Highest Civilian Honor Award to Hillary Clinton and George Soros.
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Joe Biden gives the USA's Highest Civilian Honor Award to Hillary Clinton and George Soros.
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago, 13 flags -
Winter Storm
Fragile Earth: 12 hours ago, 7 flags -
A great artist and storyteller, for kids of all ages
General Entertainment: 14 hours ago, 6 flags -
Paradox of Progress
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 9 hours ago, 6 flags -
Biden Face Planted Somewhere
Politicians & People: 14 hours ago, 5 flags -
Stuck Farmer And His Queue Jumping Spawn
Rant: 1 hours ago, 1 flags -
Speaking of Pandemics
General Conspiracies: 54 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
The theory that COVID-19 originated in China takes a body blow.
Diseases and Pandemics • 57 • : Lazy88 -
FIEND SLASHED: Sara Sharif’s killer dad ‘has neck & face sliced open with jagged tuna tin lid
Mainstream News • 21 • : Asktheanimals -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7989 • : Flyingclaydisk -
A great artist and storyteller, for kids of all ages
General Entertainment • 2 • : Asktheanimals -
Nigel Farage's New Year Message.
Politicians & People • 21 • : gortex -
Speaking of Pandemics
General Conspiracies • 2 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Stuck Farmer And His Queue Jumping Spawn
Rant • 0 • : TimBurr -
The Future of fashion .
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 20 • : Flyingclaydisk -
NJ Drones tied to Tesla explosion at Trump Las vegas
General Conspiracies • 46 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Tesla Cybertruck Explodes in Front of Trump Hotel in Las Vegas
Mainstream News • 222 • : Flyingclaydisk