Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Quintilian

it seems history really is lost on you unfortunately.

Lol..that's some irony right there!!!!!

Seems irony isn't your thing.

I understand irony quite well actually, it's funny to see someone say something ironic, and they be completely oblivious.

Apparently appeasement "is" your thing. Appeasement cost millions upon millions of lives in WWII. It's not a good policy.

originally posted by: BigfootNZ

You used the words 'Lebensraum 2', meaning that is what you believe they were being 'steered towards'...

No, I quite clearly stated they were being "steered towards" war in this region once again. Much of the west seems to be.

Lebensraum (in parenthesis followed by a question mark...because an lol certainly wasn't appropriate) was used to acknowledge the folly of one of their 1940's *claimed* motives for war. It's obvious they are no longer NAZI's nor are they now seeking "living space". Instead they are being directed by the state that the NAZI's openly admired and used as their model (the US) and that has occupied them since WW2. Their is irony in that.

What attempt to gain ruZZian resources?.. all Ukrainians allies want is ruZZia to piss off back to its pre invasion borders, or pre 2014 borders... what resources are they taking, all thats happening in that situation is Ukraine getting back what ruZZia took from them in the last 8+ years and most importantly what they've taken the last year. What ruZZIan resources does that entail?

Well, they have been talking about removing Europe from Russian resources for decades via some of their more illustrious war criminals, going back to dubbya's regime. You would have to believe that should Russia collapse economically their rebuilding via US puppet institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO and so on) will be a humanitarian one that won't benefit the US.

Jesus that's naive.

Sanctions are an attempt to put pressure on ruZZia in its funding aggresion, and what US hegemony? USA hasnt been in a real position like that for a long time.

Good lord, you are seriously asking "what US hegemony"? lol. About the country that (at the moment) controls the financial system most of the world uses, has the worlds reserve currency that most of the world trades in and has over 800 off shore military installations?

Yeah, wonderful things US sanctions. If you overlook the immiseration and death it causes to innocent populations. Such as the one by that old hag Albright that caused the deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi youngsters. The again the following invasion caused so many deaths, who's counting.

Everything you say is carbon copy bollocks straight from every ruZZian media talking point ive watched, given your very young account and content you have to be a ruZZian bot.

Believe as you wish. The propaganda here is on a similar level to the pandemic. It seems even more successful.

While it's not relevant, I've actually been here quite a bit longer than you, despite rejoinng recently.

The "Putin ebil" rhetoric, while possibly true (he is both a politician and a lawyer after all) overlooks the obvious. That every US president since WW2 would have been indicted if Nuremberg principles were applied fairly. For what amounts to crimes of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As argued by Noam Chomsky. This includes Biden and Trump. In fact the relevant areas of US politics would be decimated if this happened.

You just have to believe that this time their motives are pure. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Quintilian

it seems history really is lost on you unfortunately.

Lol..that's some irony right there!!!!!

Seems irony isn't your thing.

I understand irony quite well actually, it's funny to see someone say something ironic, and they be completely oblivious.

Apparently appeasement "is" your thing. Appeasement cost millions upon millions of lives in WWII. It's not a good policy.

Not at all. "Anti War" is my thing.

I wasn't ever talking appeasement. I was talking about avoiding and or stopping conflict. The west obviously has no interest in that.

WW2 appeasement depends on which historian, or version of history you listen to. It has been said that it wasn't so much appeasement, as Europe waiting and hoping for Germany to invade USSR first.

That's certainly what the US did. Not the first time they have waited before entering hostilities...ie. WW1 where they needn't really have bothered. Economic and industrial production was their greatest contribution to either war.

a reply to: lotusaugen

Thank you for commenting, more viewpoints of people from EU member states are good for this thread.

Macht's gut

Cheers

23 January Update

* Ukrainian intelligence assessed that Russian forces are preparing for an offensive effort in the spring or early summer of 2023

* Russian forces continued limited counterattacks to regain lost positions along the Svatove-Kreminna line.

* Ukrainian forces struck Russian concentration areas in occupied Luhansk Oblast.

* Russian forces continued ground attacks around Bakhmut and on the western outskirts of Donetsk City.

* Russian forces likely conducted a failed offensive operation in Zaporizhia Oblast in the last 72 hours.

More at URL above.

Gerasimov told the troops to get haircuts and shaves. Of course, the Chechen and Wagner warlords roared their disapproval.

Cheers

a reply to: lotusaugen


I did not know Greece and Turkey have so many leopards , surely they could easely afford sending like 20 from each country .


Thanks for your comments

a reply to: Quintilian

Because it worked out so well the last time they sent tanks over that way?

Anyone with even the most basic, rudimentary knowledge of WWII knows the difference; 'the last time they sent tanks over that way' Germany was the aggressor, this time Russia is the aggressor.
This time Germany would be seeking to help the people of another country defend itself from an invader, the last time they were the invader.

If you want to start discussing historical similarities and the lessons we should have learnt from the past I'll gladly engage with you, as I'm sure quite a few other members would as well.

You seem keen to bandy words like 'lebensraum' around without recognising that the country trying to enforce lebensraum like policies today is in fact Russia.

a reply to: Quintilian

How would that be ironic? If you believe the same thing is repeating again, isn't that in fact the opposite of irony? Like, is it ironic that Russia is trying to occupy Ukraine again?

Back to WW1 tactics ?



Good description how Russia’s tactic gradually deteriorated from trying (and failing) a Blitzkrieg attack, then going over to WW2 tactics for Lysychansk, then currently employing WW1 tactics in Bakhmut.






How Russia's tactics have changed since the beginning of the war - 4 strategies of the Russian command 1/

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Quintilian

Because it worked out so well the last time they sent tanks over that way?

Anyone with even the most basic, rudimentary knowledge of WWII knows the difference; 'the last time they sent tanks over that way' Germany was the aggressor, this time Russia is the aggressor.
This time Germany would be seeking to help the people of another country defend itself from an invader, the last time they were the invader.

Any time you send tanks into a country that isn't yours with the express aim of helping one of the belligerents, you are also an aggressor by definition. So there is that.

Germany would be sending tanks, ultimately, to help the US. The country that originally inspired the German NAZI's, ironically enough. All it will do is prolong the slaughter. None of them care one iota about Ukraine. In the end whatever the US wants them to do, they will anyway.

If you want to start discussing historical similarities and the lessons we should have learnt from the past I'll gladly engage with you, as I'm sure quite a few other members would as well.

Where will we start? With the (documented) promises to Russia that NATO would not expand one inch to the east? With Putin's speeches over the last couple of decades? With the US neocon policy to stop German/European reliance on Russian gas (remember Nordstream)? Their part in the Maidan coup and the resulting civil war/funding of extremists on Russia's borders?

The precedent Russia would probably use (under international law) to condone it's military action. The same on the US couldn't use for it's recent illegal invasions?

You seem keen to bandy words like 'lebensraum' around without recognising that the country trying to enforce lebensraum like policies today is in fact Russia.

You'll get over my quip.

Imagine if Canada or Mexico were being armed by Russia and courted into an alliance dedicated to the destruction of the US. Imagine if Russia instigated a coup in either place and then funded a civil war where extremists were shelling people who identified as Americans...

Though Mexico is obviously a bad example as about 1/3 of the US was taken from them via military conquest anyway (speaking of Lebensraum), but you get what I mean.

a reply to: Quintilian

ny time you send tanks into a country that isn't yours with the express aim of helping one of the belligerents, you are also an aggressor by definition. So there is that.

that's about ignorant, german crews wouldn't be the ones operating the tanks, and there wouldn't be any germans identification on them. it would be Ukrainian crews and identification.

by that logic, iran, china, north korea, and anyone else that is supplying equipment and weapons to russia would be an aggressor.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Quintilian

How would that be ironic? If you believe the same thing is repeating again, isn't that in fact the opposite of irony? Like, is it ironic that Russia is trying to occupy Ukraine again?

Germany was involved in conflict with Russia (USSR) some 80 yrs ago due to Nazi ideology.

They are now being taken dangerously in the same direction by the state that bigs itself up as "liberators" of Nazi oppression. But which in reality is the very state the original Nazi's got thier inspiration and ideas from (the US).

For Germany, when all things are considered, this has many of the hallmarks of a Greek tragedy in the making.

I have seen videos of tanks being delivered to Ukraine by train. What would stop Russia from bombing this trains? Seems like an obvious move for Russia. They can say they were preventing an attack and nip it in the bud as opposed to letting the tanks get set up and more people getting killed by those tanks

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Quintilian

ny time you send tanks into a country that isn't yours with the express aim of helping one of the belligerents, you are also an aggressor by definition. So there is that.

by that logic, iran, china, north korea, and anyone else that is supplying equipment and weapons to russia would be an aggressor.

I agree in this instance. They are aggressors. Iran is too obvious isn't it? They despise the US (and likely the Brits), and why wouldn't they, given their respective histories?

There are nations that sell weapons to anyone, that aren't necessarily aggressors. But if you are supplying weapons to help someone because you have taken sides, you are an aggressor. Possibly a cowardly one, but an aggressor none the less.

For instance if you sell someone a baseball bat and they clobber someone with it, that's hardly your fault. If you see two people arguing and give one of them a baseball bat and say "clobber him", that's hardly the same thing, is it?

When you also throw trade and economic machinations into this mix, it is a much larger conflict behind the scenes than first appears, and that we are being told about. It might get even much bigger militarily yet. Certainly has the potential for it.

originally posted by: Salamandy
I have seen videos of tanks being delivered to Ukraine by train. What would stop Russia from bombing this trains?

Capability mainly.

If Russia had the ability to do precision strikes at that distance they would already be doing so.

a reply to: Quintilian

Well would say that it is ironic that 80 years ago Germany used their tanks to attack Ukraine, and now German tanks are being given to Ukraine instead for the defense of Ukraine? That would actually be ironic, in my opinion, because it's a reversal. But I suppose you wouldn't see it that way.

For Germany, when all things are considered, this has many of the hallmarks of a Greek tragedy in the making.

I'm just curious which hallmarks you are referring to, if not irony?

a reply to: Kenzo

Napoleonic era coming up next.

Cheers

a reply to: Quintilian

There are nations that sell weapons to anyone, that aren't necessarily aggressors. But if you are supplying weapons to help someone because you have taken sides, you are an aggressor. Possibly a cowardly one, but an aggressor none the less.

For instance if you sell someone a baseball bat and they clobber someone with it, that's hardly your fault. If you see two people arguing and give one of them a baseball bat and say "clobber him", that's hardly the same thing, is it?

same could be said for those selling or trading weapons to russia,

hey we see your getting your ass kicked, we'll trade you some weapons for cheap oil and Ukrainian produce and grain.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2


I guess so

Russian weapon industry forced to produce " hybrid tanks " .


kontact6 twitter