Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[Stonepark]

8 minutes ago, Mungler said:

We’ve had the stats on what is needed to take and occupy Ukraine, a country three times the size of the UK; a million troops and all the kit, support and supplies they need. 

Putin has forcibly called up less than 500,000 untrained civilians to fight in a non aggressing neighbouring country.

500,000 military age men have since fled Russia to avoid being called up.

Conversely, Ukrainian morale and cohesion is high and this is reflected in military gains and progress.

All those early reports about crumbling moral and Zelensky without support? Anyone who previously swallowed all that Kremlin propaganda want to revisit their position?

I don’t see how Russia can win this - seriously.

At the start I thought it was possible - super power run by a master tactician and all that nonsense. But this has laid bare that they are a shambles and corrupt from top to bottom - absolutely nothing works as it should.

This will go down as the biggest military mistake in history. 

Oh and what underlies all of this is that despite what the Kremlin says, the Ukrainian people really really just don’t want to be part of Russia or under Putin’s boot. That doesn’t appear to me to be that unreasonable.

 

Oh and these are absolutely brilliant.

I’d urge everyone to follow DarthPutin.

 

Mungler, nearly every part of what you said is like it has been lifted from the Ukranian version of Pravada.

This is why it is good to have an independent view as you would have us believe the Titanic suffered a minor scrape to its hull or Germany was winning WWII, even as the Russians entered Berlin

Putin is not wanting to take and hold the whole of Ukraine.... Straw man argument!

He has called up those with previous military experience (though some others were called up mainly by accident and most have been released, what is interesting is that is Ukraine that forcibly conscripted untrained civilians.

Ukranian morale is not high, generally they are now 6 months into the fight and are running out of heavy equipment and ammo, likewise the nazi SS units had  supposedly high morale until they reached the same point and winter set in....

The Russian army is equipped and is trained to fight in winter.. the Ukranian conscripts are not.

The illegal Ukraine government attacking and shelling the Donbass for 8 years is non-agression? Building up and training your military to invade and take back the region's who seceded is non aggression? Pull the other one....

You always get the priveliged mainly middle and upper class fleeing the draft in modern countries at war. Ukraine's population did exactly the same months before....

Ukraine is only really making gains mainly over open fields and hamlets, where Russia has consolidated it lines in the last 2 weeks to reduce it's defensive front by 25% into prepared positions.

Whether you like it or not, a significant part of the population are ethnically Russian and wished to have close relations with Russia and are mainly in the East of what was Ukraine and is now part of Russia.

 

I would recommend that everyone should keep their eyes and ears open and make sure you have as much information as possible before drawing conclusions.....

 

[12gauge82]

7 hours ago, mchughcb said:

Lets see how keen NATO is to support this for a few years because Zelensky isn't going to negotiate.

 

And why on earth should he? 

Should we have negotiated with the nazis? 

Who the hell is Putin to invade a free country and then when the people fight to be free, expect them to negotiate, that's bullying in anyone's book, Ukraine has clearly decided not to be bullied and who is anyone to tell them they're wrong? 

[Mice!]

12 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Mungler, nearly every part of what you said is like it has been lifted from the Ukranian version of Pravada.

This is why it is good to have an independent view as you would have us believe the Titanic suffered a minor scrape to its hull or Germany was winning WWII, even as the Russians entered Berlin

Putin is not wanting to take and hold the whole of Ukraine.... Straw man argument!

He has called up those with previous military experience (though some others were called up mainly by accident and most have been released, what is interesting is that is Ukraine that forcibly conscripted untrained civilians.

Ukranian morale is not high, generally they are now 6 months into the fight and are running out of heavy equipment and ammo, likewise the nazi SS units had  supposedly high morale until they reached the same point and winter set in....

The Russian army is equipped and is trained to fight in winter.. the Ukranian conscripts are not.

The illegal Ukraine government attacking and shelling the Donbass for 8 years is non-agression? Building up and training your military to invade and take back the region's who seceded is non aggression? Pull the other one....

You always get the priveliged mainly middle and upper class fleeing the draft in modern countries at war. Ukraine's population did exactly the same months before....

Ukraine is only really making gains mainly over open fields and hamlets, where Russia has consolidated it lines in the last 2 weeks to reduce it's defensive front by 25% into prepared positions.

Whether you like it or not, a significant part of the population are ethnically Russian and wished to have close relations with Russia and are mainly in the East of what was Ukraine and is now part of Russia.

 

I would recommend that everyone should keep their eyes and ears open and make sure you have as much information as possible before drawing conclusions.....

 

But don't forget,  no one was bothered about the 8 years of shelling, or anything else that happened,  it only mattered when Russia rolled over the border and everyone suddenly thought they were going to take the whole of Europe. 

People keep saying the Ukraine are taking back swathes of land, well they will do if Russia are pulling back knowing what winter will bring, but how will the Ukraine stop them simply taking it again,  or shelling the area?

How much longer is the West going to keep pumping money into this conflict?

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Should we have negotiated with the nazis? 

We did, more than once.

 

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Who the hell is Putin to invade a free country

Again I'm not defending Russia's aggression, but it is no different to what the West (us included) has done on countless occasions.

Our hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Stonepark said:

Mungler, nearly every part of what you said is like it has been lifted from the Ukranian version of Pravada.

This is why it is good to have an independent view as you would have us believe the Titanic suffered a minor scrape to its hull or Germany was winning WWII, even as the Russians entered Berlin

Putin is not wanting to take and hold the whole of Ukraine.... Straw man argument!

He has called up those with previous military experience (though some others were called up mainly by accident and most have been released, what is interesting is that is Ukraine that forcibly conscripted untrained civilians.

Ukranian morale is not high, generally they are now 6 months into the fight and are running out of heavy equipment and ammo, likewise the nazi SS units had  supposedly high morale until they reached the same point and winter set in....

The Russian army is equipped and is trained to fight in winter.. the Ukranian conscripts are not.

The illegal Ukraine government attacking and shelling the Donbass for 8 years is non-agression? Building up and training your military to invade and take back the region's who seceded is non aggression? Pull the other one....

You always get the priveliged mainly middle and upper class fleeing the draft in modern countries at war. Ukraine's population did exactly the same months before....

Ukraine is only really making gains mainly over open fields and hamlets, where Russia has consolidated it lines in the last 2 weeks to reduce it's defensive front by 25% into prepared positions.

Whether you like it or not, a significant part of the population are ethnically Russian and wished to have close relations with Russia and are mainly in the East of what was Ukraine and is now part of Russia.

 

I would recommend that everyone should keep their eyes and ears open and make sure you have as much information as possible before drawing conclusions.....

 

 

But all of your reply is straight off Russia Today.

I can't believe that you are arguing that the Russian invasion wasn't for the whole country, when it was all points of the compass.

As for threat to Russia? Really? And we are told that NATO should be searching for a negotiated solution - perhaps Putin should have tried his own medicine before creating this mess.

We will see who is right and wrong as the months progress. You have been demonstrably wrong so far and I don't see that changing.

This will roll on and the Yanks will happily fund it because it's almost the perfect scenario for them - no loss of US life, weaken Russia and flog a load of kit and debt on. And Putin made it happen. If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

Putin needs an excuse to reverse out now and manage to keep his own head attached to his shoulders.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

But don't forget,  no one was bothered about the 8 years of shelling, or anything else that happened,  it only mattered when Russia rolled over the border and everyone suddenly thought they were going to take the whole of Europe. 

People keep saying the Ukraine are taking back swathes of land, well they will do if Russia are pulling back knowing what winter will bring, but how will the Ukraine stop them simply taking it again,  or shelling the area?

How much longer is the West going to keep pumping money into this conflict?

 

1. what turned 8 years of aggravation into an invasion, bypassing political and negotiated outcomes?

2. The suggestion has been made that Russian soldiers are trained for Winter - maybe, in the 2 months training these conscripts will have. Let's hope the boots reach them - trainers and slip ons aren't great for winter.

3. I am pretty sure that ukranian military will receive better on the ground / local support than the invaders. Indeed, reports are that anyone who previously lived in ukraine and was supportive of Putin has already made way to the Russian border because they can see what is coming.

4. funding - the US will fund this for as long as it takes. Forever and a day because it suits them far too well.

[Newbie to this]

14 minutes ago, Mungler said:

This will roll on and the Yanks will happily fund it because it's almost the perfect scenario for them - no loss of US life, weaken Russia and flog a load of kit and debt on. And Putin made it happen. If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

I think you are sort of making @Rewulf's point, on a proxy war.

[Mice!]

27 minutes ago, Mungler said:

what turned 8 years of aggravation into an invasion, bypassing political and negotiated outcomes?

Maybe the fact that Ukraine weren't keeping to what was agreed,  but I'm glad you think that bring shelled is just an aggravation.

29 minutes ago, Mungler said:

This will roll on and the Yanks will happily fund it because it's almost the perfect scenario for them - no loss of US life, weaken Russia and flog a load of kit and debt on. And Putin made it happen. If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny

So the Yanks will happily fund it, the Ukraine gets slowly turned to rubble and the rest of Europe is being dragged down as well, with Russia apparently being weakened as a bonus.

I thought this was about freeing the Ukraine and stopping Russia,  it certainly doesn't seem like it.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

We did, more than once.

 

 

Okay, but in the context of this conversation, negotiation would mean ukraine surrendering parts of Ukraine, should the UK have offered the nazis parts of the UK? 

57 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I think you are sort of making @Rewulf's point, on a proxy war.

Possibly, but no more so than when the Russians supplied the taliban with weapons during our conflict with them, or the cia doing the same when Russia fought fought them before that. 

How about the Falklands with the french and others? 

Depends on your definition of a proxy war? 

 

[wymberley]

18 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Ukraine isn't invading Russia though.  They are on 'home ground'.

Yes, but with a push of a button from a nice warm bunker the ground could become the opposite of 'scorched earth' and your home a pile of rubble. With no power, no heat, no food and no shelter, how long before you give in?

[Newbie to this]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Okay, but in the context of this conversation, negotiation would mean ukraine surrendering parts of Ukraine, should the UK have offered the nazis parts of the UK? 

No certainly not, but Austria and Czechoslovakia were acceptable.

I don’t remember the UK being invaded, my history could be wrong though.

 

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Possibly, but no more so than when the Russians supplied the taliban with weapons during our conflict with them, or the cia doing the same when Russia fought fought them before that. 

How about the Falklands with the french and others? 

Depends on your definition of a proxy war? 

 

Not my definition, just seemed to be making Rewulf's point after arguing against it.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Newbie to this

[welsh1]

Lol people arguing that russians are prepared and trained to fight in winter in ukraine, and Ukrainians are not.

Just to point out that Ukrainians train in a place called Ukraine and i am guessing know exactly what their winters are like.

And the russians are suffering with a lack of equipment both vehicle wise and personal kit wise due to the corruption within thier hirachy who have squirreled money away and either not procured kit or if they did it was cheap and not up to the job.
The conscripts are being told to supply their own kit.

Oh and Putin invaded the whole country.

[Newbie to this]

4 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Oh and Putin invaded the whole country

Absolutely, the second the army crossed over the border.

[mchughcb]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

And why on earth should he? 

Should we have negotiated with the nazis? 

Who the hell is Putin to invade a free country and then when the people fight to be free, expect them to negotiate, that's bullying in anyone's book, Ukraine has clearly decided not to be bullied and who is anyone to tell them they're wrong? 

Because one day people who are supporting him are going to run out of money or support to give him that money. At some point they will walk away or ask him to negotiate. As he has ruled out the latter then the former applies. As the various leaders are all tanking in the polls or have been given the boot, those filling their shoes may not be full of the bravado of support.

 

 

 

 

[old'un]

22 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Lol people arguing that russians are prepared and trained to fight in winter in ukraine, and Ukrainians are not.

Just to point out that Ukrainians train in a place called Ukraine and i am guessing know exactly what their winters are like.

And the russians are suffering with a lack of equipment both vehicle wise and personal kit wise due to the corruption within thier hirachy who have squirreled money away and either not procured kit or if they did it was cheap and not up to the job.
The conscripts are being told to supply their own kit.

Oh and Putin invaded the whole country.

One bit of kit they are getting (tanks) looks extremely vulnerable to some of the weapons supplied by the west, watching videos of Ukraine strikes on Russian tanks it seems such an easy target for these modern weapons, mind you, they also seem vulnerable to kids drones.

Makes you wonder if the tank is finished as a battle field weapon?

[timps]

A question to those that hold NATO in such distain, what will be the outcome if either of these scenarios were to ever happen?

1) Russia and NATO pull all support and allow it to become a civil war?

2) Russia removes troops on the ground and just offer equipment support?

In both cases I see a Ukrainian victory, the only way Russia can control this is with troops on the ground, an army of liberation tends to be become an army of occupation in a very short period of time and countless conflicts throughout the age have proved this.

Those that continue to blame NATO while excusing Russia forget that if neither side had got involved this conflict would have probably been over by now or never started in the first place.

Those in Ukraine wanting independence would never have got anywhere without Russian supplies and Russian troops masquerading as separatist Militia in the first place.

Civil wars are never pretty or nice, however, full scale invasions of other countries tend to be even worse.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Because one day people who are supporting him are going to run out of money or support to give him that money. At some point they will walk away or ask him to negotiate. As he has ruled out the latter then the former applies. As the various leaders are all tanking in the polls or have been given the boot, those filling their shoes may not be full of the bravado of support.

There must be an award somewhere for a post that contains no sense whatsoever.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

This will roll on and the Yanks will happily fund it because it's almost the perfect scenario for them - no loss of US life, weaken Russia and flog a load of kit and debt on. And Putin made it happen. If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

I think you are sort of making @Rewulf's point, on a proxy war.

He got there in the end , after denial after denial about it being a proxy war, hes finally gone quiet on that bit.
All he needs to do now to complete the circle , is realise the whole shebang was a constructed affair.

First denial, then acceptance, after that will come justification, where he explains how Russia needed to be stopped, as Putin was a global security threat, and Ukraine was where it needed to happen , at the expense of the Ukrainian people.

Meanwhile in China *LOLs in Mandarin*

40 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Depends on your definition of a proxy war? 

My definition is when a power , uses another state to conduct warfare on its rival power.
There are many scenarios , including supplying weapons to a state that is already involved in a conflict, conducting political manipulation to create unrest or antagonism to its rival, false flag operations and false information or propaganda.
The sticky fingers of the US intelligence services are evident in many central American countries , Syria, Libya and Ukraine, and likely many other countries that have not born the desired results ..Yet.
I would imagine Belarus , Georgia and other Caucus nations will feature on this list.
If you watched  the Wild card video I posted earlier, many Turks , including Erdogan believe the recent coup there was backed by the US.
Make your own mind up whether you believe Ukraine is one such constructed proxy , designed to tackle Russian energy power expansion.
But make no mistake , the US has a long history of similar operations along these lines.

[mchughcb]

6 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

There must be an award somewhere for a post that contains no sense whatsoever.

Well wars cost money, the question is who has enough money. America is coming off a 20 year war on terror at a cost of $6.6 Trillion, their economy is tanking and their leader's legs are wobbling.

[mchughcb]

21 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

McHugh has posted about how the Yanks looked at using them 50 years ago - fascinating. They didn't though did the, and presumably because they knew that once they opened that Pandora's box....

 

If you ever studied the terrain of the Khe Sanh battle you would know that the hills would have made the effectiveness of a low yield nuclear blast not very effective, which is what they said in the declassified documents.

 

You seem to hate Russia with a passion. Have you ever been to Russia?

 

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, timps said:

A question to those that hold NATO in such distain, what will be the outcome if either of these scenarios were to ever happen?

1) Russia and NATO pull all support and allow it to become a civil war?

2) Russia removes troops on the ground and just offer equipment support?

In both cases I see a Ukrainian victory, the only way Russia can control this is with troops on the ground, an army of liberation tends to be become an army of occupation in a very short period of time and countless conflicts throughout the age have proved this.

Agreed , weight of numbers would win on its own...

7 minutes ago, timps said:

Those that continue to blame NATO while excusing Russia forget that if neither side had got involved this conflict would have probably been over by now or never started in the first place.

8 years, no end in sight, how long would you give it ?
Why no real effort to resolve it peacefully, this is the burning question, Kyiv could have made some kind of proposal , but it seemed happy to let it drag on interminably , why ?

8 minutes ago, timps said:

Those in Ukraine wanting independence would never have got anywhere without Russian supplies and Russian troops masquerading as separatist Militia in the first place.

Civil wars are never pretty or nice, however, full scale invasions of other countries tend to be even worse.

When Zelensky came to power in 2019 , one of his election promises was to 'end the civil war in Donbass' ,Oh and tackle corruption 😄
Many assumed this would mean a negotiated peace deal, perhaps they hoped a partition, the fact that most of the Donbass didnt get to vote in the election soured the result somewhat, but the end result was Zelensky did nothing to stop the shelling and fighting in the disputed regions.
He did nothing to end corruption either , rather he put his besties in all the best power positions, people with no experience of governing a country.
At the same time he made ever closer ties to the EU and NATO, taking training and weapons packages, and a partial mobilisation for what many thought was an army capable of forcibly taking back Donbass.

Russia wasnt too happy with this, and here we are.
What I can be sure of , every time there was a chance to avert this disaster, every time the UN, or NATO/US  could have  stepped in and done something non violent to help, they chose to do nothing , or they sent more weapons.
Are these the actions of peace loving nations.
Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem, WE stirred the pot.

[Gordon R]

Quote

You seem to hate Russia with a passion. Have you ever been to Russia?

It tops your previous post. What has Mungler's travel got to do with this? He "hates" Ukraine being invaded. It happens to be Russia doing the invading.

I don't agree with Rewulf, but he is prepared to argue his corner and support it with reasons, whereas you move from one bizarre post to another.

[Mungler]

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

I think you are sort of making @Rewulf's point, on a proxy war.

A proxy war is defined as (and I quote) “a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved”.

Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine asked the world for support. The US has predictably tripped over itself to lend a hand to an invaded and set upon sovereign nation. 

When England was isolated in WW2 and fuelled, fed and armed by US shipping and supplies, was that the US’ proxy war on Germany?

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Lol people arguing that russians are prepared and trained to fight in winter in ukraine, and Ukrainians are not.

Just to point out that Ukrainians train in a place called Ukraine and i am guessing know exactly what their winters are like.

And the russians are suffering with a lack of equipment both vehicle wise and personal kit wise due to the corruption within thier hirachy who have squirreled money away and either not procured kit or if they did it was cheap and not up to the job.
The conscripts are being told to supply their own kit.

Oh and Putin invaded the whole country.

Thank you. 

48 minutes ago, old'un said:

Makes you wonder if the tank is finished as a battle field weapon?

You’re right. What’s a tank going to do on its own against a drone?

It’s all new now

[ordnance]

I wouldn't call it a proxy war Ukraine is fighting invaders, and like any country they are free to get help from whoever is willing to give it.

[Newbie to this]

6 minutes ago, Mungler said:

When England was isolated in WW2 and fuelled, fed and armed by US shipping and supplies, was that the US’ proxy war on Germany?

Short answer yes.

It's well documented that Churchill went cap in hand to the US to get involved, and was told there was no appetite for another European war amongst the US population, even though the government were ready for war. Best they could do was arm us, at a cost of course.

There are those that believe that Pearl harbour was allowed to happen (we warned them well in advance), so the appetite would be there for war with Japan and by association Germany.

Some might say yes Proxy war.

[welsh1]

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Russia wasnt too happy with this, and here we are.
What I can be sure of , every time there was a chance to avert this disaster, every time the UN, or NATO/US  could have  stepped in and done something non violent to help, they chose to do nothing , or they sent more weapons.
Are these the actions of peace loving nations.
Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem, WE stirred the pot.

So it decided to invade another country against all international laws and slaughter it's population.

It's got nothing to do with russia what ukraines internal problems may or may not have been.