Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Also, @Raoul - I found a better map of the situation the day the war began
UkraineCoTFeb24%2C2022.png
 
Beans said:
NATO tried very hard to basically bribe Russia into joining the international order. That's what NATO wanted, was for Russia to join NATO, not fight it.

If NATO wanted to fight, why don't any of them have an army besides the US?
Click to expand...

It's so absurd to believe that what is currently happening is in any way a desirable scenario for NATO, especially the EU (and Germany in particular). I'm completely sure every NATO member would have loved to avoid all of this.
 
This looks like a good opportunity to set up the Kaliningrad People’s Republic as a buffer zone, followed by a referendum to see if they want to join NATO.
 
Zehner said:
Especially strange since Russia is running out of equipment as well. Even if they have personnel, their resources and production capacities are bound in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
There is no logical explanation for this except that he says these things to support the chancellor who for some reason doesn't want to support Ukraine the way Germany should and could.
 
I said it at the beginning of this war and I will say it again:

The West shouldn't be afraid of escalation. It should be the Russians who are scared of escalation!

Why? Because the West is ten times stronger than the Russians. Unfortunately our leadership is very weak.
 
ShoePolish said:
Click to expand...

It isn't even hard to believe when you consider there is historical precedent for this. If I'm remembering right, Japan hid their carrier losses at the Battle of Midway from not only the general public, but also a significant part of their own high-command. There were also US carriers that they claimed as sunk multiple times, only for them to re-appear again and again in subsequent engagements.
 
frostbite said:
I said it at the beginning of this war and I will say it again:

The West shouldn't be afraid of escalation. It should be the Russians who are scared of escalation!

Why? Because the West is ten times stronger than the Russians. Unfortunately our leadership is very weak.
Click to expand...
I think the fear is the nuclear escalation where everybody loses. Obviously, in a conventional conflict, the US by itself could easily overthrow the Russian regime and US tanks could reach Moscow within a few months.

But, if there is a nuclear escalation, then one being 10x stronger doesn’t make a difference.

Of course, this is not to say that the US (and rest of NATO) should not do anything. They have played this perfectly so far, and as long as the help to Ukraine continues, Russia is fecked.
 
stefan92 said:
There is no logical explanation for this except that he says these things to support the chancellor who for some reason doesn't want to support Ukraine the way Germany should and could.
Click to expand...
Leaving the door open for gas supplies to eventually resume because in fact there really isn't a viable alternative that doesn't mean higher prices being the norm with potential devastating effects on German industry?
 
Revan said:
I think the fear is the nuclear escalation where everybody loses. Obviously, in a conventional conflict, the US by itself could easily overthrow the Russian regime and US tanks could reach Moscow within a few months.

But, if there is a nuclear escalation, then one being 10x stronger doesn’t make a difference.

Of course, this is not to say that the US (and rest of NATO) should not do anything. They have played this perfectly so far, and as long as the help to Ukraine continues, Russia is fecked.
Click to expand...

No, the West did not play it perfectly. On the contrary. There are thousands and thousands of dead Ukrainians and their country has been destroyed for no good reason.

The West should have made the Russians so scared that they will be destroyed completely, that they wouldn't even think of invading anyone. The West has more and better nuclear weapons and the Russians know this too.

Unfortunately, the Western leaders are too weak for anything like that, and Putin knows this. The Ukrainians pay the price. It is terrible to say that "the West played it perfectly".
 
It has been known since ancient times that "if you want peace, prepare for war".

It was moronic from the western leaders that they said clearly and unequivocally that they will not go to war, no matter what. Even after the Russians invaded Ukraine in 2014, even after it was clear in December 2021 that they will invade again. Basically the morons that we have as "leaders" in the west, gave the green light for Putin to invade. Why? Why not warn Putin that an invasion means all out war with the West? And if we are not taking sides, what exactly are we doing?

It is a good thing that we helped Ukraine after February 24th. But again it is basically the USA who saved Ukraine. Europe has done very little. If USA wasn't helping as much, if USA happened to have Trump as president, Europe would do absolutely nothing except for a few loud farts. It is unbelievable how badly the European leaders have handled this war. Europe is richer that Russia, but the will to do the right thing is not there. Europe has been trying to do as little as possible, Europe has learned nothing from the Chamberlain-Hitler debacle. As a European, I feel ashamed! As an EU citizen, I feel partly responsible for all this suffering of the Ukrainians today. (Again: Thank you, USA. )
 
frostbite said:
No, the West did not play it perfectly. On the contrary. There are thousands and thousands of dead Ukrainians and their country has been destroyed for no good reason.

The West should have made the Russians so scared that they will be destroyed completely, that they wouldn't even think of invading anyone. The West has more and better nuclear weapons and the Russians know this too.

Unfortunately, the Western leaders are too weak for anything like that, and Putin knows this. The Ukrainians pay the price. It is terrible to say that "the West played it perfectly".
Click to expand...
The West doesn’t have more and better nuclear weapons, that’s Trump level of speaking. Russia alone has more nuclear weapons than the West (the US, the UK and Franc) combined. But that is besides the point. Even with half of those nuclear weapons, they can destroy every important city in the West (same for either of those three countries alone who can destroy every important city in Russia) and essentially kill billions of people with after effects.

It does not matter who has better nuclear weapons. Both ICBM and SLBM missiles are currently not defendable from any country. Both Russia and the US can throw a couple of thousands of them, with nuclear warheads. The US are likely gonna me significantly more precise, but at the end doesn’t matter. If they all detonate, it is game over for the civilization.

This is a good reason why there hasn’t been a war between nuclear powers, be it if the conflict was Cuba, India-Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both times) and so on.
 
Revan said:
The West doesn’t have more and better nuclear weapons, that’s Trump level of speaking. Russia alone has more nuclear weapons than the West (the US, the UK and Franc) combined. But that is besides the point. Even with half of those nuclear weapons, they can destroy every important city in the West (same for either of those three countries alone who can destroy every important city in Russia) and essentially kill billions of people with after effects.

It does not matter who has better nuclear weapons. Both ICBM and SLBM missiles are currently not defendable from any country. Both Russia and the US can throw a couple of thousands of them, with nuclear warheads. The US are likely gonna me significantly more precise, but at the end doesn’t matter. If they all detonate, it is game over for the civilization.

This is a good reason why there hasn’t been a war between nuclear powers, be it if the conflict was Cuba, India-Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both times) and so on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's like saying "NATO is far more powerful because the could destroy Russia 10 times when Russia can only destroy most european cities 5 times!". Doesn't matter, we'd be all f*cked.
 
I think main point he was making, or he should have made, is that Europe needs to grow a spine. It was very telling to me reading from several sources that it was US and British generals joining Ukrainian ones to plan counteroffensive. EU contributed nothing, it comes either as a lack of trust or lack of qualified cadre. In political and military sense, EU needs to become a factor, or euroscepticism will grow.
 
Raoul said:
This looks like a good opportunity to set up the Kaliningrad People’s Republic as a buffer zone, followed by a referendum to see if they want to join NATO.
Click to expand...

The big question of self-governance will have to be asked at some point over there, considering that the region has a much deeper European history than the rest of Russia. Unless the union between an enclave and the country's mainland is very solid, history often shows that the enclave/colony will eventually seek independence if the mainland is not doing well.
 
Bosnian_fan said:
I think main point he was making, or he should have made, is that Europe needs to grow a spine. It was very telling to me reading from several sources that it was US and British generals joining Ukrainian ones to plan counteroffensive. EU contributed nothing, it comes either as a lack of trust or lack of qualified cadre. In political and military sense, EU needs to become a factor, or euroscepticism will grow.
Click to expand...

You cant say EU contributed nothing when a lot of families in Europe are struggling because their energy Bill double or tripled. Nothing comparable to what ukrainians are experiencing obviously, Im not comparing, but it's also an war on the russian economy and everybody is paying a price (which im happy to pay personnally).
 
Bosnian_fan said:
I think main point he was making, or he should have made, is that Europe needs to grow a spine. It was very telling to me reading from several sources that it was US and British generals joining Ukrainian ones to plan counteroffensive. EU contributed nothing, it comes either as a lack of trust or lack of qualified cadre. In political and military sense, EU needs to become a factor, or euroscepticism will grow.
Click to expand...
i think it is becoming a factor. increased spending and the german move to disregard unanimous consent within the union on certain foreign policy matters. that hints at an increasingly militarized union. but part of them growing a spine, though it will be a long way down the line, also implies keeping their distance from an exclusively nato oriented command. the more self-reliant the eu becomes militarily, the less likely it is to follow orders so easily. in an unintended way, you might see the death of nato quicker with the militarization of europe.

on the ukraine thing. the eu has landborders and direct energy reliance with russia. the americans and british don't. they were always going to play it differently even though they are contributing quite a lot in terms of money and guns despite what people say.
 
Oly Francis said:
You cant say EU contributed nothing when a lot of families in Europe are struggling because their energy Bill double or tripled. Nothing comparable to what ukrainians are experiencing obviously, Im not comparing, but it's also an war on the russian economy and everybody is paying a price (which im happy to pay personnally).
Click to expand...
That's a good point actually. It doesn't have the same short-term impact, but those economic sanctions are quite valuable - and that's something the US (or Canada) don't really notice at all. In fact, they'll probably benefit from it if anything (as oil and gas producers themselves).
 
Cheimoon said:
That's a good point actually. It doesn't have the same short-term impact, but those economic sanctions are quite valuable - and that's something the US (or Canada) don't really notice at all. In fact, they'll probably benefit from it if anything (as oil and gas producers themselves).
Click to expand...

To be fair our gas (petrol) prices skewed upwards for quite a while after the conflict started. We definitely noticed that. Settled down a bit now but still pretty high.

Also to be fair, that may have just been oil company greed/opportunism but when prices shot up rapidly it seemed to align to events in Ukraine.
 
the hea said:


That makes it five MARS II/M270 launchers in total donated from Germany.
Click to expand...


That's good news! Wikipedia says:

"Some 1,300 M270 systems have been manufactured in the United States and in Western Europe, along with more than 700,000 rockets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System

If we could lend 10% of those to Ukraine (that is 130) only for the duration of this war, they could certainly win this war, don't you think? We have only provided a dozen or so, and they still have a huge impact.



And this shows how powerful the West is! Just the 10% of our rocket systems would destroy the Russian army! And the Western military forces are not based on rocket systems! They are based on the Air Force, and we have not provided even a single modern airplane to Ukraine!...

That's why I am saying that it is the Russians that should be afraid of the West, not the other way around, even with nuclear arms. I don't know how many million dollars Russians have paid to spread disinformation and doubt and propaganda in the West, but they have certainly done a good job. Many people in the West seem to be scared, while the Russians are bullying us! Amazing! (And pathetic!)
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...083f878e70e0e0#block-632347528f083f878e70e0e0

Von der Leyen: 'absolutely vital' for EU member states to support Ukraine with military equipment

In a quiet rebuke to Germany, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, addressed European Union member states who were not fulfilling their commitments to equip Ukraine.

“To all member states: it’s absolutely vital and necessary to support Ukraine with the military equipment they need to defend themselves. They have proven that they are able to do that if they are well equipped,” she said. “This is the general recommendation to all member states.”

When Russian forces first invaded Ukraine, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, shocked the world in announcing a historic 180-degree policy turn on defence spending and exporting lethal weapons. He committed to sending missiles and anti-tank weapons to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression – but six months later, many of those much-needed weapons have yet to arrive.

In recent days, Ukraine upped its calls for more air defence and overall weapons deliveries, after a dramatically successful counter-offensive that has resulted in the recapturing of the Kharkiv region – but also retaliatory targeted attacks on the country’s infrastructure and repeated Russian shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
To be fair our gas (petrol) prices skewed upwards for quite a while after the conflict started. We definitely noticed that. Settled down a bit now but still pretty high.

Also to be fair, that may have just been oil company greed/opportunism but when prices shot up rapidly it seemed to align to events in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, true, although various things seemed to factor into that. Like, all prices went up because global supply chains were disrupted, and that's not because of this invasion; and markets being shocked by the invasion would have happened with or without the sanctions.

But yes, one way or another, there was definitely some effect there.
 
VorZakone said:
Ben Hodges is former US Army.

Click to expand...


This is what I'm speaking of. Unfair to blame it on whole of Europe though, I accept my mistake there, but Germany and France as EU leaders are ridiculous.

Anyway, any substance in reports that Georgia is moving its troops to South Ossetian border? We've already seen Azerbaijan attacking Armenia, obviously well aware that Russia are incapable of acting, and we've also seen China visiting Kazahkstan and warning Putin against meddling in Kazakhstan's internal affairs. Russia has obviously lost much more than it could gain even by somehow turning this war into their favor, which seems less and less likely by the day. It things continue like this and Belarussians bring down Lukashenko for example, it could be a matter of time before internal unrest starts building and some of those republics within Russia try themselves separating from the country.
 
Bosnian_fan said:
This is what I'm speaking of. Unfair to blame it on whole of Europe though, I accept my mistake there, but Germany and France as EU leaders are ridiculous.

Anyway, any substance in reports that Georgia is moving its troops to South Ossetian border? We've already seen Azerbaijan attacking Armenia, obviously well aware that Russia are incapable of acting, and we've also seen China visiting Kazahkstan and warning Putin against meddling in Kazakhstan's internal affairs. Russia has obviously lost much more than it could gain even by somehow turning this war into their favor, which seems less and less likely by the day. It things continue like this and Belarussians bring down Lukashenko for example, it could be a matter of time before internal unrest starts building and some of those republics within Russia try themselves separating from the country.
Click to expand...
Kazakhstan already announced that they are going to suspend their CSTO membership (the Russian-led NATO equivalent), so Russia has lost a partner there.

Armenia looks like they might be going to invoke the support article of the CSTO amidst the attacks from Azerbaijan and it's doubtful that there will be a substantial response if that happens, so CSTO is basically dead now.
 
frostbite said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...083f878e70e0e0#block-632347528f083f878e70e0e0

Von der Leyen: 'absolutely vital' for EU member states to support Ukraine with military equipment

In a quiet rebuke to Germany, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, addressed European Union member states who were not fulfilling their commitments to equip Ukraine.

“To all member states: it’s absolutely vital and necessary to support Ukraine with the military equipment they need to defend themselves. They have proven that they are able to do that if they are well equipped,” she said. “This is the general recommendation to all member states.”

When Russian forces first invaded Ukraine, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, shocked the world in announcing a historic 180-degree policy turn on defence spending and exporting lethal weapons. He committed to sending missiles and anti-tank weapons to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression – but six months later, many of those much-needed weapons have yet to arrive.

In recent days, Ukraine upped its calls for more air defence and overall weapons deliveries, after a dramatically successful counter-offensive that has resulted in the recapturing of the Kharkiv region – but also retaliatory targeted attacks on the country’s infrastructure and repeated Russian shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Click to expand...
If I were Ukrainian, I'd be very upset with Germany over that promise, there's no excuse for why those weapons haven't arrived.

Russia isn't sending energy, if Germany can't get some concessions out of Russia for not sending weapons, they might as well send them. As Russia feels their impact on the field, then they'll be motivated to offer energy in exchange for Germany not providing more weapons, if that's what they're after.
 
Beans said:
If I were Ukrainian, I'd be very upset with Germany over that promise, there's no excuse for why those weapons haven't arrived.
Click to expand...
Actually what was promised then and mentioned in the article has been delivered. Ukraine got thousands of MANPADs (Stinger and Strela) and anti-tank weapons like Panzerfaust etc.

The problem is the massive delay or refusal to even promise heavy systems. This very slowly changes, but still there would be more possible. At least today it was announced that Ukraine will get 50 Dingo MRAPs and 2 more M270 MLRS. Which is something and will be useful, but still isn't a MBT or IFV that Ukraine wishes to get and which could just be delivered by the industry if the chancellor did approve them, so far he refuses to do that.
 
stefan92 said:
Actually what was promised then and mentioned in the article has been delivered. Ukraine got thousands of MANPADs (Stinger and Strela) and anti-tank weapons like Panzerfaust etc.

The problem is the massive delay or refusal to even promise heavy systems. This very slowly changes, but still there would be more possible. At least today it was announced that Ukraine will get 50 Dingo MRAPs and 2 more M270 MLRS. Which is something and will be useful, but still isn't a MBT or IFV that Ukraine wishes to get and which could just be delivered by the industry if the chancellor did approve them, so far he refuses to do that.
Click to expand...
That's good to hear, thanks.

Would you say he's refusing to deliver those more advanced system in an attempt to sweeten Russia in the hopes they will decide to supply energy in the future, or is there something else at play?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.