jeezLancasterclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:31 pmThe poor b**tards in this tank
What the f**k is a tank doing, completely unsupported, driving around a city held in strength by an enemy
Its a slaughter
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1504162903385120769
the whole thing is beyond horrificIts beyond horribleevensteadiereddie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:51 pmAnd that's the sanitised version which is bad enough.
I’d be asking ‘reported by who?’ - The Azov’s have been openly supporting Russia since Zelenskiy took power.HahaYeah wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:39 pmMoment feared Ukrainian regiment obliterates Russian armoured personnel carrier
In a video released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, a tank reportedly operated by the neo-Nazi Azov regiment is seen opening fire on an armoured Russian vehicle
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... t-26469853
Jesus, that's unhinged even by his standards. I say this with no exaggeration, that is the kind of rhetoric you see written by slobbering idiots on fascist facebook groups. Said it on the previous war thread that the Russian far-right, like all other fascists who think this way, have an almost pathological fixation with opulence and sexuality. They think they want to live like the austere Spartans of antiquity whom misunderstand in their imagination. You've got swathes of frustrated blokes looking for a reason for their $hit life. (Putin is one of them. He used to drive taxis to scrape together a living. I'm convinced that experience helped propelled his ambition.) Then at an impressionable moment some idiot philosopher or grifting rabble-rouser dazzles them with a few rhetorical flourishes, in the case of the philosopher drawing on such a vast array of areas of expertise that no one person can adequately challenge the points made or even properly follow a line of 'reasoning' (because it doesn't even exist), and due to the fact the reader lacks the intellect or education or experience to separate bull$hit rhetoric from sound arguments they find themselves vulnerable to having the author's prejudices and biases smuggled into their mind by something presenting itself as broadly scientific and analytical. Next thing you know people are debating the IQ's of various races and asserting that queer people are causing social decline. I find this aspect of human psychology fascinating, but also terrifying when those people have power.CoolClaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:06 pmSomeone posted & translated a speech Putin did today, broadcasted on Russian state TV….
Really is harrowing stuff https://mobile.twitter.com/just_whateve ... 5501557762
Pure Eurasian fascism - exactly the stuff that renowned Russian philosopher and ex Kremlin advisor Alexander Dugin spouts
Extremely sinister
The guy is sounding more and more like
Can you provide a link that shows this please?elwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:54 pmI’d be asking ‘reported by who?’ - The Azov’s have been openly supporting Russia since Zelenskiy took power.
Much more effective than words........i can't bear to look at child casualties....fills me with rage!elwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:35 pmVideo President Zelenskiy played to the U.S. Congress during his meeting today. NEXTA
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/150 ... 68709?s=21
Agree, really not looking for another Treaty of Versailles here. That worked well last time.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:01 pmHas to be handled very sensibly by the West and Ukraine
Yes, they must pay, but they must not be backed into a corner, there must be a way out for them that ends in normality or they could just decide to go all in
1) Yes, he thought he could take Ukraine, be welcomed with open arms, and present it as a fait accompli to the Westecc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:32 pmAn obviously serious question for you gents (there is no room here for anything not serious):
Three questions, in fact:
a) Do you think, from the outset, Putin wanted to take Kiev?
b) Do you think he's now facing a situation where it's peace or trying to take Kiev?
c) Could he take Kiev?
Based on my very limited knowledge of the context, here FWIW are my own answers:
a) I don't think it's easy double-guessing this man. A month ago I didn't think he'd invade; I thought it was brinksmanship which, until now, he's been a master of. However, I think he's lost the plot now.
b) Again, I don't know. If I had to answer I would say he will try his best to find a way of avoiding going that far but he's not exactly someone who likes losing face.
c) Even he bombed it to bits, the Ukranians would fight to the bitter end. It would be horrific and the number of fatalities doesn't bear thinking about.
But he did that in Syria with several cities.
The Treaty of Versaille was as always a compromise. The main issue was that France (and for that matter Belgium) had been physically damaged whilst Germany had been barely scratched yet the latter lost the war and were considered the cause of it. Worse, as the Germans left France they removed anything they could - factories, railway carriages etc. - and did some unnecessary damage, like flooding mines. Why, the French would argue, should the Germans not pay for this. After all, post war they had to compete economically and Germany would have an unfair head start. Hence reparations
Honestly. I think it started out as a land grab for the separatist regions much like Crimea. But as he was slapped down Putin the bully erupted. Unused to being told ‘no’,now he now finds himself making increasingly impotent threats, even as his power diminishes. Ever decreasing circles - ever increasing pressure.ecc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:32 pmAn obviously serious question for you gents (there is no room here for anything not serious):
Three questions, in fact:
a) Do you think, from the outset, Putin wanted to take Kiev?
b) Do you think he's now facing a situation where it's peace or trying to take Kiev?
c) Could he take Kiev?
Based on my very limited knowledge of the context, here FWIW are my own answers:
a) I don't think it's easy double-guessing this man. A month ago I didn't think he'd invade; I thought it was brinksmanship which, until now, he's been a master of. However, I think he's lost the plot now.
b) Again, I don't know. If I had to answer I would say he will try his best to find a way of avoiding going that far but he's not exactly someone who likes losing face.
c) Even he bombed it to bits, the Ukranians would fight to the bitter end. It would be horrific and the number of fatalities doesn't bear thinking about.
But he did that in Syria with several cities.
Well, the repatriations might not have had too serious an effect if it wasn't for the Great depression, but it was a factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of HitlerHipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:49 pmThe Treaty of Versaille was as always a compromise. The main issue was that France (and for that matter Belgium) had been physically damaged whilst Germany had been barely scratched yet the latter lost the war and were considered the cause of it. Worse, as the Germans left France they removed anything they could - factories, railway carriages etc. - and did some unnecessary damage, like flooding mines. Why, the French would argue, should the Germans not pay for this. After all, post war they had to compete economically and Germany would have an unfair head start. Hence reparations
Whilst it was realised by Wilson and others that this and the taking of land could lead to a later war how could you reasonably argue with France's case.
We did alright out of it - we got access to middle east oil.
A- that’s an interesting point around Putin being the master of brinkmanship. I think what made him quite so ominous is that actually he he’s not a bluffer. The historian (not Spider-Man) Tom Holland made the point on a podcast that when you look back at his military interventions, from Georgia, Crimea, and the Donbas, he’s followed through on his threats. Brinksmanship’s a different game when you always follow through. And when looking at this bin the wider context dating back to 2008 and Georgia, regardless of Russia’s stated aims, I think regime change was the name of the game knowing that any resistance from Ukraine would give them a pretext to go all in.ecc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:32 pmAn obviously serious question for you gents (there is no room here for anything not serious):
Three questions, in fact:
a) Do you think, from the outset, Putin wanted to take Kiev?
b) Do you think he's now facing a situation where it's peace or trying to take Kiev?
c) Could he take Kiev?
Based on my very limited knowledge of the context, here FWIW are my own answers:
a) I don't think it's easy double-guessing this man. A month ago I didn't think he'd invade; I thought it was brinksmanship which, until now, he's been a master of. However, I think he's lost the plot now.
b) Again, I don't know. If I had to answer I would say he will try his best to find a way of avoiding going that far but he's not exactly someone who likes losing face.
c) Even he bombed it to bits, the Ukranians would fight to the bitter end. It would be horrific and the number of fatalities doesn't bear thinking about.
But he did that in Syria with several cities.
Further to this: the ‘reparation’ payments were payback from the French (still smarting from the Franco-Prussian walk over) on top of the War. Both Britain and the USA thought them unrealistically excessive but France held sway. Russia faces a very similar meltdown if a vacuum of power is allowed to develop: Russian Nationalists v Social Communists, and likely Civil War.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:52 pmWell, the repatriations might not have had too serious an effect if it wasn't for the Great depression, but it was a factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler
You have to learn from the lessons from history mate, and the lesson is pretty clear what not to do
Its very tough balance about what to do if Russia does want peace.
But the civil war with the Freikorps and the Communists 1919-21 finished that quite quickly
Totally agree, and what I find so rewarding is that when you ask a question or make a statement the main contributors to the thread who have obviously got in depth knowledge of the situation and how it is playing out militarily,socially, economically etc are so helpful and not at all condescending or rude, it's made me realise that when this is over hopefully we all treat each other civily and with respect on this board, I know I'll try to.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:57 pmI just want to add my thanks to you all on this thread, I've learned a lot (especially historical things) as time has gone by. It truly has been the best and most up to date source of information.
a) As most strategists seem to agree he expected to walk into at least the east Ukraine (including Kiev) and south - the Black Sea regions - and control it all within a few days. That he didn't succeed is down to these factors:ecc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:32 pmAn obviously serious question for you gents (there is no room here for anything not serious):
Three questions, in fact:
a) Do you think, from the outset, Putin wanted to take Kiev?
b) Do you think he's now facing a situation where it's peace or trying to take Kiev?
c) Could he take Kiev?
I'm still stunned to see such daft concentrations of vehicleselwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 8:58 pmOSINTtechnical - More evidence of the effectiveness of Ukraine against Russian groupings.
https://twitter.com/osinttechnical/stat ... 67847?s=21
Or just how much are they looking to lose at ground level, without getting killed?Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:06 pmI'm still stunned to see such daft concentrations of vehicles
After 20 days of stuff like this, you'd think the lessons would be filtering through the Russian troops
It does beg the question, just how badly trained are they?
I just don't get itelwaclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:09 pmOr just how much are they looking to lose at ground level, without getting killed?
I know it's difficult, and he has to save face, but we shouldn't allow him to dictate terms. Ukraine should have the final say, and if they say NO, then we should back them 100%.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:52 pmWell, the repatriations might not have had too serious an effect if it wasn't for the Great depression, but it was a factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler
You have to learn from the lessons from history mate, and the lesson is pretty clear what not to do
Its very tough balance about what to do if Russia does want peace.
Thing is, its taken Putin and the Russian armed forces 10 years to build this army and air forceColburn_Claret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:14 pmI know it's difficult, and he has to save face, but we shouldn't allow him to dictate terms. Ukraine should have the final say, and if they say NO, then we should back them 100%.
At the same time, relaxing sanctions from a West pov, would just encourage him to do it again. Putin has to be punished in some form in order to prevent a repeat. He is unlikely ever to see the inside of a court house, we have to keep the pressure on, even if it leads to another cold war.
On another issue, the threatening of the Baltic states. It seems clear to me that if Russia waged war on its old satellite countries, they would get their arses handed to them on a plate, with no need for help from the old Western alliances. Not that I would leave them to hang, just an observation that the Red Army has been shown to be a figment of everyone's imagination. They don't have the manpower, technology, or resolve to fight on such a massive front.
Sanctions dropping is a no-no we discussed earlier (for more detail) - but the removal of sanctions would be a double edged sword for Russian stability. They are in such a mess they left no wriggle room to get out of it, after today. They are politically North Korea, all that remains to be seen is how long in real terms is the WCJ version of ‘immediately’, before Russia becomes russia.Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:14 pmI know it's difficult, and he has to save face, but we shouldn't allow him to dictate terms. Ukraine should have the final say, and if they say NO, then we should back them 100%.
At the same time, relaxing sanctions from a West pov, would just encourage him to do it again. Putin has to be punished in some form in order to prevent a repeat. He is unlikely ever to see the inside of a court house, we have to keep the pressure on, even if it leads to another cold war.
On another issue, the threatening of the Baltic states. It seems clear to me that if Russia waged war on its old satellite countries, they would get their arses handed to them on a plate, with no need for help from the old Western alliances. Not that I would leave them to hang, just an observation that the Red Army has been shown to be a figment of everyone's imagination. They don't have the manpower, technology, or resolve to fight on such a massive front.
Even if they could manufacture the hard ware. The demographics say they just cannot breed fast enough to provide the soldiers. Mr Ziehans point all along. Not my thoughts or workLancasterclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:19 pmThing is, its taken Putin and the Russian armed forces 10 years to build this army and air force
And its failed to take over a non-NATO country with weapons that are essentially the ones the Russians gave them (plus a lot of NATO weaponry)
I'm fairly confident that Russia won't be able to rebuild that in a hurry, and you are looking at a decade plus of them essentially rebuilding, and that is just the army, without taking into account any of the damage done to the economy
I don't think Ukraine want to back them into a corner, I don't think the West do either, but we have to be very careful how we proceed, because a desperate man will grab at anything
Far more than that Russia itself is in a tail spin of ever decreasing circles on all fronts, seemingly with a pilot off his head with laudanum.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:32 pmI have been spun around by this so many times.
I thought Russia would toll in and take over in a few days.
Then I leanrnt how hard the Ukrainians are, from history.
The west reacted way more than I thought they would, they didn’t really care in 2014.
All of a sudden we are sending more munitions to Ukraine than Russia can fight against.
Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:19 pmThing is, its taken Putin and the Russian armed forces 10 years to build this army and air force
And its failed to take over a non-NATO country with weapons that are essentially the ones the Russians gave them (plus a lot of NATO weaponry)
I'm fairly confident that Russia won't be able to rebuild that in a hurry, and you are looking at a decade plus of them essentially rebuilding, and that is just the army, without taking into account any of the damage done to the economy
I don't think Ukraine want to back them into a corner, I don't think the West do either, but we have to be very careful how we proceed, because a desperate man will grab at anything
Hiya Lowbank comparing Afghan with Ukraine is chalk and cheese if honest US and coalition did everything whilst trying to minimise the death and destruction to the civilian populous believe it or not the Russians as we have seen don’t care.Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 8:14 pmOn the subject of Kyiv.
I have watched many analysts on TV, this is not my thoughts.
When US troops were told to take a city in Afghanistan it took them 2 months, the force against them only had small arms too.
Leningrad was apparently 1/4 the size Kyiv and that was the Germans city too far.
No way Russian forces can take it.
100% agree with your points.JarrowClaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:41 pmHiya Lowbank comparing Afghan with Ukraine is chalk and cheese if honest US and coalition did everything whilst trying to minimise the death and destruction to the civilian populous believe it or not the Russians as we have seen don’t care.
To answer the original questions I can’t remember number 2 but from reading stuff online and looking at what the invasion had available to them the intention at the start was not to capture Kyiv. I have mentioned previously on here that the Russians would need around 1 million troops to capture the whole of Ukraine and probably double that to hold it.
I think the intention initially was to do a lightning charge into Kyiv kill or capture Zelynski or to initiate some sort of coupe. The bosses of the FSB were recently arrested rumoured they has misspent money that was supposed to have gone towards setting the coupe up.
Could they take Kyiv? not a chance with the force they had amassed, they possibly could if they had less conscripts and more professional soldiers but even then I very much doubt it still.