Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[Rewulf]

31 minutes ago, timps said:

I do wonder if you ever read what you actually write, I know I’m not the first or only one to ask you this. Anyway, for the sake of getting back to the topic I’ll ignore all the pointless stuff you got wrong and move on.

Regarding the above you really need to understand the difference between the two.

And then you get back to the boring pointless argument , and completely ignore getting back to the topic 

33 minutes ago, timps said:

History is simple, there are numerous similar conflicts throughout history where liberating armies that then imposed martial law have then been seen as an occupying army after time. This can and does promote conflict and unrest towards them from the locals.  

Cant imagine why 😆

34 minutes ago, timps said:

Can this historical knowledge of the failures repeated then be used in the current conflict, answer yes. Russia putting armed roadblocks and curfews in areas that are not at the front line will cause resentment, it has been seen before in other conflicts.

And then you say...

35 minutes ago, timps said:

Whataboutry: Russian imposes martial law …. But what about USA they did to….

Just stop !

39 minutes ago, timps said:

Can this knowledge then be used in the current conflict, answer no, it’s irrelevant all you can do with this knowledge is tar Russia and USA with the same brush.

If the cap fits ?

41 minutes ago, timps said:

Troops on the front line don’t interact with the local civilians, under martial law they do.

You are saying that it is ridiculous that martial law makes the change to hostile in one breath and of course it makes for conflict in the other. 

Absolute rubbish !
There isnt one army that fights on the front and another that bullies civilians, troops get rotated out of combat, and the civilians dont recognise two armies, that bonkers !
You are trying to make up scenarios to suit your opinion, you dont have the technical knowledge to make this work , please dont try.
Timps , Im sure youre a nice guy, but interactions with you seem to drag on and on with no resolution, try not to reply , as its a waste of both our time.
If you feel you cant do this, consider putting me on ignore, or if you dont want that , Ill do it instead.

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - you are ridiculing Timps for pointing out the flaws in your posts. It doesn't advance your argument one iota, as he is right.

[Mungler]

12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - you are ridiculing Timps for pointing out the flaws in your posts. It doesn't advance your argument one iota, as he is right.

Indeed. Timps has out of everyone best made the point that reciting alleged historical failings in US foreign policy isn’t relevant to the war to hand and doesn’t provide any rationale or plausible explanation for the invasion and war, other than to advance some sort of ‘what’s good for the goose’ argument, which doesn’t stand up that well or on its own merits in the context of unnecessarily starting a war where hundreds of thousands of people have died.

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

My version of peace involves people not killing each other, yours seems to involve giving them more and heavier weapons to err, kill each other ?
Have you ever read the book Needful Things by Stephen King, its entirely relevant to this situation.

But your version of peace does involve people dying because one side is better equipped and has more guns than the other, and leading to a nation (Ukraine) being subjugated to the rule of a self appointed despot who isn’t keen on elections, a free press, a free judiciary and if you are rude about him you’ll be put in prison etc.

Indeed, you just want a Russian victory and can’t / won’t contemplate any other outcome. A teensy but odd and perhaps unfair to Ukraine?
.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Mungler

[timps]

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Absolute rubbish !
There isnt one army that fights on the front and another that bullies civilians, troops get rotated out of combat, and the civilians dont recognise two armies, that bonkers !
You are trying to make up scenarios to suit your opinion, you dont have the technical knowledge to make this work , please dont try.
Timps , Im sure youre a nice guy, but interactions with you seem to drag on and on with no resolution, try not to reply , as its a waste of both our time.
If you feel you cant do this, consider putting me on ignore, or if you dont want that , Ill do it instead.

Eh you do understand how martial law works don’t you?

The civilian police force of locals that usually patrol the streets away front the front line is now replaced by a foreign army and checkpoints. It was the argument you lost to welsh1 before.

If there is no martial law then all the troops are on the front line.

Seeing as you’re not my mum  I’m not going to do what you say, it’s the second time you asked me to block you, like I say it’s simple you keep quoting me so I keep responding to those quotes where I feel the need.

As for the rest your post, it contained absolutely nothing and answered nothing but you quoted me and responded with quips anyway.

Ill guess it’s the last I will hear from you when I post now.

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - you are ridiculing Timps for pointing out the flaws in your posts. It doesn't advance your argument one iota, as he is right.

Gordon , if I thought he was right I wouldnt argue with him , Im not too proud to admit when Im wrong.
But he goes off on tangents and changes the context so much , its about the 3rd or 4 th time now weve had this round and round argument, that goes no where.
Ive re read what hes said , and he has bought up things that hes supposed  to have said that he didnt, and things that Ive said that I didnt..
Then when challenged , hes said 'Well , thats what I meant' or 'Well thats what you meant'

You cant debate with that kind of ,man , so Im out , as far as hes concerned.

4 minutes ago, timps said:

Eh you do understand how martial law works don’t you?

The civilian police force of locals that usually patrol the streets away front the front line is now replaced by a foreign army and checkpoints. It was the argument you lost to welsh1 before.

If there is no martial law then all the troops are on the front line.

Jesus christ , if all the troops are on the front line , who is administering the martial law ?
From one daft argument to the next.

5 minutes ago, timps said:

Seeing as you’re not my mum *snip*

Youre not wrong , have fun.

[Rewulf]

19 minutes ago, Mungler said:

But your version of peace does involve people dying because one side is better equipped and has more guns than the other, and leading to a nation (Ukraine) being subjugated to the rule of a self appointed despot who isn’t keen on elections, a free press, a free judiciary and if you are rude about him you’ll be put in prison etc.

Indeed, you just want a Russian victory and can’t / won’t contemplate any other outcome. A teensy but odd and perhaps unfair to Ukraine?

Here a question for you, related to what you said above.
For 8 years the separatists fought the Ukrainian far right militias, now its fair to say the separatists had Russian backing, and the militias had the unofficial backing of the Ukrainian government.
All this on a 500 km front , complete stagnant attrition , bit of shelling , but mostly pot shots and forays/ambushes, in other words , not a proper war, but never the less , thousands killed , including many civilians.

Lets look at it from the Russian perspective to start , if Russia wanted to , it could have used a fraction of what its used in the 22 invasion, to overcome the poorly armed UKR militia, could it not , why do you think that was ?

Like wise , if the UKR regular army wanted to overcome the separatists, it could have done , but didnt ?

I can understand that stalemate had been reached , and a balance of sorts across the 'front'
Yet nothing really started to gather pace until the west started chucking weapons into Ukraine. (Around 20-21)
You can read into what Im saying as you will , but dont you find it odd , that all the pieces were on the board already for the game to start, but they waited 8 years until the west added some extra pieces, and in response , so did Russia.

Ive asked it before , but Ill try again , its one of those questions you like to dodge or ignore.
Why did Russia wait 8 years for the completely wrong time to do its full scale invasion ?

Also , why did Ukraine wait 8 years , and not even use its far superior military to crush the Donbass separatists ?

 

[timps]

33 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Jesus christ , if all the troops are on the front line , who is administering the martial law ?
From one daft argument to the next.

Eh what the heck you on about no martial law it’s the police and local authorities martial law it’s the soldiers. That’s the whole difference, the whole point of why it’s a mistake 😂  you really don’t read do you.

 

37 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Youre not wrong , have fun

I was wrong you couldn’t help yourself you replied AGAIN see ya 

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

 

Ive asked it before , but Ill try again , its one of those questions you like to dodge or ignore.
Why did Russia wait 8 years for the completely wrong time to do its full scale invasion ?

Also , why did Ukraine wait 8 years , and not even use its far superior military to crush the Donbass separatists ?

 

I honestly don’t have a view or care. The questions are irrelevant - whoever did or didn’t wait 8 weeks, 8 years or 88 years. So, what’s the point in speculating.

I have my own view as to why the invasion took place, but to the greater extent that too is irrelevant and you wouldn’t agree and we’d go round in circles.

Edit

Interestingly, can anyone think back in history and come up with any set of circumstances where an invasion with 6 figure loss of life has been justified or for the best or arguably a great idea or the best option that was available at the time?

.

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Mungler

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Interestingly, can anyone think back in history and come up with any set of circumstances where an invasion with 6 figure loss of life has been justified or for the best or arguably a great idea or the best option that was available at the time?

I'm assuming you're not including D-Day...

[Mungler]

41 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I'm assuming you're not including D-Day...

No. There was a world war well underway and France already long invaded, occupied and under martial law.

[Stonepark]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

I honestly don’t have a view or care. The questions are irrelevant - whoever did or didn’t wait 8 weeks, 8 years or 88 years. So, what’s the point in speculating.

I have my own view as to why the invasion took place, but to the greater extent that too is irrelevant and you wouldn’t agree and we’d go round in circles.

Edit

Interestingly, can anyone think back in history and come up with any set of circumstances where an invasion with 6 figure loss of life has been justified or for the best or arguably a great idea or the best option that was available at the time?

.

 

According to the USA\UK\West - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan all qualify, but I am sure those deposed and their populations disagree.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Stonepark

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, Mungler said:

No. There was a world war well underway and France already long invaded, occupied and under martial law.

I was assuming so, but it was an invasion, so had to check.

[Mungler]

20 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

According to the USA\UK\West - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan all qualify, but I am sure those deposed and their populations disagree.

There you go again. Irrelevant. Utterly utterly irrelevant to the here and now of Ukraine. 

Also, great examples of where an invasion was a dreadful idea.

Indeed you hold the US to account for those conflicts / invasions but you can’t Russia now - why is that? You cry hypocritical, back atcha 

Mention any of those countries or conflicts to anyone in Ukraine and they will wonder what Kremlin supplied drugs you are on.

.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Mungler

[clangerman]

9 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

what Kremlin supplied drugs you are on.

.

WAY WAY OUT OF LINE! 

[Mungler]

6 minutes ago, clangerman said:

WAY WAY OUT OF LINE! 

Shhhhh princess.

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, timps said:

Eh what the heck you on about no martial law it’s the police and local authorities martial law it’s the soldiers. That’s the whole difference, the whole point of why it’s a mistake 😂  you really don’t read do you

Just a little taste of what it's like debating with you 🤣

[timps]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Just a little taste of what it's like debating with you 🤣

Oh hello, I thought you were ignoring me, my ‘mistake’.😂

But seriously, you will argue every point and never give an inch no matter what. You say you admit when you are wrong, but seriously you never think you are wrong so ….  Every time you have asked me to prove what was said, I have quoted it, apart form this last time, as I gave up and tried to get back on track, but I get that you disagree on interpretation,  that's the point on forums.

You always want to argue semantics, you say disagree is not the same as differ etc. just as one example ( I get you might have equal on me) but the dictionary on this one  differs or disagrees with you, so we get stuck on that rather than the actual subject.

Does it matter for the point of the debate ?

No it doesn’t, but here is the thing, I will argue my corner with anyone just like you. I get you are passionate about what you believe, but I will just be as belligerent / passionate as you when it comes to arguing my point.

Instead of scoring points and just telling me ‘USA did it as well’  which is a **** argument,  just keep saying:-

‘If all the troops on the front line, who is administering….’

While I might not agree, it is a salient argument that can be debated the former is not as it is not relevant and I will say so.

Just accept the written word can be miss read, misinterpreted by different eyes and I will try and do the same or don't and actually ignore me 👍. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by timps

[12gauge82]

Absolute wrongs and rights are seldom present in life, which is especially true in something like a major conflict or war. 

I know for a fact that the allies were not whiter than white during ww2 for instance. 

The saying all's fair in love and war didn't happen for no reason. 

But it is clear as day that Russia, led by Putin is the aggressor in this conflict, if all the points raised by Rewulf and others are true and I'm sure some have merit, it still doesn't change the fact Putin has invaded its neighbour, a country that posed no threat to itself and even if Putin had done it to protect some sort of Ukraine led persecution in the Donbass, the harm by a "Special military operation" would far out way any good achieved, any idiot could forsee that before an invasion took place, it just doesn't wash! 

Ultimately, the bottom line is this, Putin is a war mongering murder!

[Mungler]

17 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Absolute wrongs and rights are seldom present in life, which is especially true in something like a major conflict or war. 

I know for a fact that the allies were not whiter than white during ww2 for instance. 

The saying all's fair in love and war didn't happen for no reason. 

But it is clear as day that Russia, led by Putin is the aggressor in this conflict, if all the points raised by Rewulf and others are true and I'm sure some have merit, it still doesn't change the fact Putin has invaded its neighbour, a country that posed no threat to itself and even if Putin had done it to protect some sort of Ukraine led persecution in the Donbass, the harm by a "Special military operation" would far out way any good achieved, any idiot could forsee that before an invasion took place, it just doesn't wash! 

Ultimately, the bottom line is this, Putin is a war mongering murder!

Very nicely put.

There’s a handful you won’t convince though. You just can’t pierce through all those hours of reprogramming (aka watching crackpots on YouTube at 3 am).

In 160+ pages I’ve since given up trying to get MCHughCB or Stonepark to acknowledge any misstep let alone wrong doing on the part of Putin in all of this 😆

 

[mchughcb]

I have responded to this before. However you ignore, rinse and repeat.

Well there appears to be reports that the bomb used for the kerch bridge was smuggled out on a grain ship from Odessa. Under normal war conditions there would have been a naval blockade and this would never have happened.

The humanitarian corridor period for allowing merchant ships through is about to end. Along with the no bombing of Odessa port facilities. Russia is saying they won't extend period unless some sanctions are lifted and fertiliser is allowed to be exported.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Mungler said:

There you go again. Irrelevant. Utterly utterly irrelevant to the here and now of Ukraine. 

Also, great examples of where an invasion was a dreadful idea.

Indeed you hold the US to account for those conflicts / invasions but you can’t Russia now - why is that? You cry hypocritical, back atcha 

Mention any of those countries or conflicts to anyone in Ukraine and they will wonder what Kremlin supplied drugs you are on.

.

The Americans wanted regime change. Americans are still there after regime change. Are the Americans in Ukraine for regime change. 

[Flashman]

I wonder what will be the public’s view if/when Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine?

Will that be USA-led disinformation, Russian self defence caused by NATO aggression, or an unspeakable act of war?  After all, the Allies dropped theirs on Japan - and they deserved it…

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

But it is clear as day that Russia, led by Putin is the aggressor in this conflict, if all the points raised by Rewulf and others are true and I'm sure some have merit, it still doesn't change the fact Putin has invaded its neighbour, a country that posed no threat to itself and even if Putin had done it to protect some sort of Ukraine led persecution in the Donbass, the harm by a "Special military operation" would far out way any good achieved, any idiot could forsee that before an invasion took place, it just doesn't wash!

Good Post. 

I think even Putin would agree now. 

Trouble is, he's commited, Russia is commited, the stakes keep getting raised, yet no one seems to want to suggest any solutions, the why of it, is the important question. 

14 minutes ago, Flashman said:

I wonder what will be the public’s view if/when Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine?

Will that be USA-led disinformation, Russian self defence caused by NATO aggression, or an unspeakable act of war?  After all, the Allies dropped theirs on Japan - and they deserved it…

Now there's some interesting points. 

If Russia thought it could get away with using nukes, it would. But I don't think they can guage the NATO  reaction. 

Which would be? They're already a pariah state, already sanctioned to bits, would NATO  do something militarily? I doubt it. 

If Russian soil and infrastructure continues to get hit though, it becomes ever more likely, which makes you wonder, does NATO want them to use nukes? 

 

[Mungler]

2 hours ago, mchughcb said:

I have responded to this before. However you ignore, rinse and repeat.. 

Humour me. Without wandering, what criticism would you make of Putin / the Russian invasion? Beyond ‘they should have used bigger bombs’ and such like.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Good Post. 

I think even Putin would agree now. 

Trouble is, he's commited, Russia is commited, the stakes keep getting raised, yet no one seems to want to suggest any solutions, the why of it, is the important question. 

Now there's some interesting points. 

If Russia thought it could get away with using nukes, it would. But I don't think they can guage the NATO  reaction. 

Which would be? They're already a pariah state, already sanctioned to bits, would NATO  do something militarily? I doubt it. 

If Russian soil and infrastructure continues to get hit though, it becomes ever more likely, which makes you wonder, does NATO want them to use nukes? 

 

I doubt one tactical nuke would make any difference to the invasion / war and will only result in triggering the loss of Russian support by the likes of China and the galvanisation of support for Ukraine.

I expect Putin to try and blow that dam up and claim it was Ukraine trying to false flag against Russia (etc).

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Trouble is, he's commited, Russia is commited, the stakes keep getting raised, yet no one seems to want to suggest any solutions, the why of it, is the important question. 

He should be, to an institution!

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

I doubt one tactical nuke would make any difference to the invasion / war and will only result in triggering the loss of Russian support by the likes of China and the galvanisation of support for Ukraine.

Maybe 1 nuke to start with to test the water ? I dont know, the vast majority of people see nukes as being apocalyptic weapons where entire cities are consumed in a huge fireball, and the largest 5MT + nukes can , but both Russia and NATO dont have many of these types (China ONLY has these types) 
The nuke used would likely be small 1- 5 KT and would be airburst to cut down fallout, conventional bombs like MOAB ect are comparable in explosive force.
Even so, the psychological effect would be devastating.

I digress, would China abandon Russia ? I highly doubt it , they are dependent on Russia for gas/oil, and I suspect their military alliance runs far deeper than generally thought.
China has played a game of silence so far , which many have taken as lack of support for Russia, its a facade.

You also mention galvanisation of support for Ukraine ? But there is already huge support for them, getting a battlefield nuke to the face , isnt really going to add any more to the mix, in fact , it could easily go the other way , as nervous governments realise that Russia really is playing hard ball , just my opinion of course.

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

I expect Putin to try and blow that dam up and claim it was Ukraine trying to false flag against Russia (etc).

Ukraine has made various allegations that Russian 'terrorists' are mining the dam ready to blow it, which of course maybe true.
This would of course be on par with a nuke strike in terms of damage, so , unless youre right , and theyre going to blame the Ukrainians , a bit of a foolish move.
Or maybe the Ukrainians are going to blow it and blame the Russkie terrorists, which plays right into their ideology ?
It hearkens back to the massive play of words over Zaporizhias NPP , where Russians were shelling themselves to blow the plant and cause a nuclear incident ?
Funny how thats all gone quiet now ?

Or the 'mass grave' at Izyum , where it was insinuated the orcs have murdered over 400 civilians, have the autopsies been done yet ?

First casualty of war and all that... Never a truer word said.

ALLEGATIONS

* Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Thursday that Russia had mined the dam and was preparing to blow it, a step he compared to the use of weapons of mass destruction.

 

"I informed the Europeans today, during the meeting of the European Council, about the next terrorist attack, which Russia is preparing for at the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant," he said. "Destroying the dam would mean a large-scale disaster."

Blowing the dam, he said, would also destroy the water supply to Crimea and thus show that Russia had accepted that it could not hold onto the peninsula.

* Sergei Surovikin, the commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, said on Tuesday he had information that Ukrainian forces were preparing a massive strike on the dam and had already used U.S.-supplied HIMARS missiles against it. The result of a major strike, he said, could be a disaster.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Rewulf