Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Might not be politically correct but women are fleeing with children as you'd expect, primarily into Poland.
I'm not quite in That'shernandez camp just yet but yeah, I think the west wants Russia to be hurt in this exercise, which is natural, but "hurting Russia" will mean the kind of insurgency you saw against American troops in Iraq and elsewhere. That means thousands of dead people. For Ukrainians to decide either way, but the only problem I have with it is that it has been mandated that all males within an arbitrary range have to stay. Does that mean fathers fleeing with kids will be reprimanded? Maybe not, but it's ambiguous at the moment.
Indeed, I believe European countries can protect themselves without needing to be puppets in the hands of the USA, that is why I fail to see the value of NATO.
Let me give you a small insight as to why Ukraine matters at this very moment:
Ukraine ranks:
1st in Europe in proven recoverable reserves of uranium ores;
2nd place in Europe and 10th place in the world in terms of titanium ore reserves;
2nd place in the world in terms of explored reserves of manganese ores (2.3 billion tons, or 12% of the world's reserves);
2nd largest iron ore reserves in the world (30 billion tons);
2nd place in Europe in terms of mercury ore reserves;
3rd place in Europe (13th place in the world) in shale gas reserves (22 trillion cubic meters)
4th in the world by the total value of natural resources;
7th place in the world in coal reserves (33.9 billion tons)
Ukraine is an important agricultural country:
1st in Europe in terms of arable land area;
3rd place in the world by the area of black soil (25% of world's volume);
1st place in the world in exports of sunflower and sunflower oil;
2nd place in the world in barley production and 4th place in barley exports;
3rd largest producer and 4th largest exporter of corn in the world;
4th largest producer of potatoes in the world;
5th largest rye producer in the world;
5th place in the world in bee production (75,000 tons);
8th place in the world in wheat exports;
9th place in the world in the production of chicken eggs;
16th place in the world in cheese exports.
Ukraine can meet the food needs of 600 million people.
Ukraine is an important industrialized country:
1st in Europe in ammonia production;
Europe's 2nd’s and the world’s 4th largest natural gas pipeline system;
3rd largest in Europe and 8th largest in the world in terms of installed capacity of nuclear power plants;
3rd place in Europe and 11th in the world in terms of rail network length (21,700 km);
3rd place in the world (after the U.S. and France) in production of locators and locating equipment;
3rd largest iron exporter in the world
4th largest exporter of turbines for nuclear power plants in the world;
4th world's largest manufacturer of rocket launchers;
4th place in the world in clay exports
4th place in the world in titanium exports
8th place in the world in exports of ores and concentrates;
9th place in the world in exports of defence industry products;
10th largest steel producer in the world (32.4 million tons).
Despite all the fancy numbers, the Ukrainian people are generally poor, which is a bit weird given all the riches the country has (around 40-45% of the people there are considered poor)
The bolded part is the main issue here. If you roll back the clock to the start of the Syrian War, the war there was all about Gas and nothing else. Studies showed that Syria has a shitload of Gas under its sea, this is why the so called arab spring (mainly funded and supported by the same countries that are part of Nato) extended to Syria.
The idea was to take down the syrian regime and replace it with a pro-usa/nato one (for me they are the same) so a gas pipe can be installed from Syria, passing to Turkey and then to Europe, hence reducing/ending Europe's reliance on Russia to get Gas (you do realize if Russia stops pumping gas to europe it's fecked right?). Putin intervened in Syria (to support a dictator yey!) only when the regime was about to collapse (ISIS were knocking on damascus' door back then), and this changed the whole strategy and the US and the European countries lost the whole project with Turkey (Belgium was one of the top countries selling arms and weapons to different factions there as well)
As a result, most European countries still heavily relies on Russia for Gas supply, forward the clock to this day, it's another war on who gets hold of Ukraine and end up controlling that part and the other resources (Germany and France were against Ukraine joining the NATO in the beginning)
This is not about NATO putting some missiles at the border with Russia, the same happened during the missile crisis in Cuba (when Soviet Union placed missiles there and the US threatened to go for all-out war) and everybody backed down when they came to an agreement, the same will happen with Ukraine now, unfortunately the women and children and soldiers there will die just because the two feckers (US under NATO umbrella and Putin)
The talks between USA and Russia and Nato members about Ukraine resumed a month ago, and looking at the shambolic state the USA is in at the moment (Biden is just bad), Putin took the opportunity and hit first.
All in all, feck both of them, the only loser here is the Ukranian people unfortunately.
That's the most annoying thing about it? As you said before, this is a war for survival and nothing else - and you think aber gender equality here? In situations like these, there's no time nor the place for such luxuries, only pragmatism. And for obvious physical reasons, men are more suited for warfare than woman - especially if untrained.
It's the right message, imo. Very harsh and maybe fatal for the individual, but if a country decides to resist, one of the instruments you have to prepare your society for the hard times ahead.
It's all men, father or bachelor or grandfather. There's been videos of men being pulled out of their car close to the border to be sent back to fight.
Some people seem dead set on seeing Ukrainians as passive pawns, which is incredibly condescending.
I think there's a long list to blame there, with the top three spots being taken by Stalin, Stalin's policies, and finally some of Stalin's worst policies
I'm with you on that.
This is nonsense. Israel has mandatory conscription for both men and women. Based on what someone wrote on here, it's the same in Norway, I think.
And explain to me how it's better to send the 45-year-old father of two instead of a fit 25-year-old woman to fight when you don't need to be a body-builder to shoot a gun or throw a Molotov.
All in all, this is not about political correctness, it's the opposite. What if the children had their dad only?
Law only in effect as of 12hrs ago I think. Probably more of a morale/propaganda issue the more I think of it as it seems practically unenforceable.
I also agree. It should be seen as completely unacceptable for the mass rapes of history to occur in wars. It should also be seen as completely unacceptable to force only men to their deaths. Equality works both ways.
OK yeah, that's too far for me then.
I don't know how mandatory military service in the Ukraine is practiced, but I assume - as it is in most countries and the likes of Norway and Israel being the exception - that only men went through it?
How good are civilians forced to fight without prior training?
Apparently that Kazakh statement about denying any troop involvement also included a statement about not recognising the two Russian backed breakaway republics in Ukraine.
Better than nobody. The quote there is very similar to what the USSR was saying in WWII.
Even they gave a few weeks of training typically.
True but the USSR isn't really what you want to emulate. The scenes we're seeing now demonstrate that a large portion of Ukrainians are willing to stay and fight. I think it's a poorly thought out idea to force others to do the same, both nationally and in terms of propaganda. This is the one flaw I've seen in Ukraine's handling of the situation since the invasion began.
Our decision has nothing to do with history. There is no guarantee of protection from the west in case of an attack after what Ukraine is going through. We are doing what other countries are also doing, protecting our interest, while maintaining a distance from both NATO and russia. Btw, can anyone explain why russia was allowed to vote when the allegations are against them?
They're permanent members of the security council. They will always have a vote.
The vote will now be moved to the general assembly where a result (tally of votes) will be published and condemnation is guaranteed.
The immediate responsibility is on Russia for invading. Why the timing we will find out later for sure.
But anyone with a brain can see the possibility of this happening. From the time the USSR broke up and they wanted to join the NATO and was slapped down.
The Cuban missile crisis is a good precedent. The USA would have invaded if it was not removed. They did invade Grenada because Cuba was building a runway.
So the blame for this mess don't lie with Russia alone. Th
But really, what does a condemnation do in any practical sense?
Nothing. Putin will have known ahead of time which countries would take which sides. The UN, its humanitarian programs aside, is largely a joke.
I’d like to point out… they won.
The west has to share a good portion of the blame for this disaster. Should Putin have invaded? No. Should USA have invaded so many countries? No.
But giving Ukraine the options of having nukes and missiles from the USA and NATO on Russian borders would be unacceptable to them as much as nuclear missile in Cuba.
Militarily, sure. I mean you don't want to emulate their policies which were absolutely authoritarian.
It’s a war. Thats exactly how you fight a war if you want to remain a country.
Who decides that? Again, if you want to stay and fight, and many will, that's completely fine, but don't demand everyone has to do as you do.
If a country is fighting for existence, it can not let the most important part of its population simply leave. Some people here are pointing out that man's physical superiority compared to women would not be of any means, as a woman can throw a molotov cocktail or shoot a gun as well. Leaving completely aside that manpower is not just needed for shooting and throwing molotovs. But for all other kind of physically intense work as well, such as logistics, immediate medical aid and what not.
Pointing it out again, pretty sure military service only needs to be done by males in Ukraine as well. It makes absolutely sense as a doctrine to call all men to arms. It's brutal, it's authoritarian, but this is war for you. It's not about sending out specialized forces to some remote desert on the other side of earth, it's about the place where you live. Everybody capable is needed, which is why I guess that while men staying is mandatory, every woman will be welcomed as well. But military is heavily male dominated, for obvious reasons. It's hardly a surprise the Ukraine insists on 18-60 year old males to stay and attempt what needs to be attempted in order to exist.
Pointing it out again, pretty sure military service only needs to be done by males in Ukraine as well. It makes absolutely sense as a doctrine to call all men to arms. It's brutal, it's authoritarian, but this is war for you. It's not about sending out specialized forces to some remote desert on the other side of earth, it's about the place where you live. Everybody capable is needed, which is why I guess that while men staying is mandatory, every woman will be welcomed as well. But military is heavily male dominated, for obvious reasons. It's hardly a surprise the Ukraine insists on 18-60 year old males to stay and attempt what needs to be attempted in order to exist.
Precisely. It doesn't really work if some fight and other turn tail and run.
Last edited: