Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Sarni said:
They wouldn’t even know what’s going on Kyiv mate.
Click to expand...

Just something further on this. On R4 they have a show called the Media Show which is basically a behind the scenes look at the workings of the media. This week they had a British journalist who specialises on Russia, a Ukrainian journalist and a Russian journalist, obviously all pro-western. They agreed that Russia had now become a totalitarian state in terms of the media. There's no longer any independent media so bar the web etc there's only the Kremlin narrative in the public domain. I wonder if there'll be any roll back on that after the conflict or if this is a new paradigm for Russia in this sense.

@harms what do you make of this?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Just something further on this. On R4 they have a show called the Media Show which is basically a behind the scenes look at the workings of the media. This week they had a British journalist who specialises on Russia, a Ukrainian journalist and a Russian journalist, obviously all pro-western. They agreed that Russia had now become a totalitarian state in terms of the media. There's no longer any independent media so bar the web etc there's only the Kremlin narrative in the public domain. I wonder if they'll be any roll back on that after the conflict or if this is a new paradigm for Russia in this sense.

@harms what do you make of this?
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that any rollback would happen under Putin. Why would he give any amount of freedom back when he had already took it?
 
stefan92 said:
They are definitely struggling more than for example the US did in Iraq. Yes, they took longer to reach Bagdad, but that is simply a much longer distance, and they made sure that they had absolute control over everything, especially total dominance in the air. Russia seems to be incapable to establish anything similar.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Kyiv is 55miles (90km) from the Belarus border and 125miles (200km) from the Russian border. America launched their attack into Iraq from Kuwait which is 280miles (450km) from the the Kuwait border.
 
Air superiority was established pretty much from the 1st day as well in the iraqi wars,
 
People saying in previous pages that Putin is planning to capture NATO Baltic states including Poland next. This is categorically impossible. He might want to, but he will never try.

Putin himself has said many times that he knows Russia can't beat NATO in a conventional war. The Russian army has no chance against European forces supplemented by the United States and Britain, who are better equipped, better trained and have superior firepower both in numbers and in technological advantage. Superior western air power would maintain air superiority from day-one, Russia is using predominantly older MiG and SU aircraft, some of which have been upgraded through the decades but are absolutely no match for the modern fighters of NATO countries with considerably better avionics systems and AA missiles.

We've seen how poorly Russia has done against Ukraine, with disorganised order of battle, poorly trained conscripts and constant supply chain issues. That's against Ukraine, a nation with a relatively small military that relies largely on old soviet hardware supplemented with some donated western tech. Russia vs Europe is a non-starter, Putin knows this and wouldn't try it. If he did, they'd lose so badly that Russia's military would take a generation to recover.

The only way Putin could make headway in Europe would be full-scale nuclear war, in which case, capturing Baltic states becomes irrelevant because the world is ending anyway.
 
Droid_Repairs said:
People saying in previous pages that Putin is planning to capture NATO Baltic states including Poland next. This is categorically impossible. He might want to, but he will never try.

Putin himself has said many times that he knows Russia can't beat NATO in a conventional war. The Russian army is no match for European forces supplemented by the United States and Britain, who are better equipped, better trained and have superior firepower both in numbers and in technological advantage.

We've seen how poorly Russia has done against Ukraine, with disorganised order of battle, poorly trained conscripts and constant supply chain issues. That's against Ukraine, a nation with a relatively small military that relies largely on old soviet hardware supplemented with some donated western tech. Russia vs Europe is a non-starter, Putin knows this and wouldn't try it. If he did, they'd lose so badly that Russia's military would take a generation to recover.

The only way Putin could make headway in Europe would be full-scale nuclear war, in which case, capturing Baltic states becomes irrelevant because the world is ending anyway.
Click to expand...
Georgia is more likely to be attacked next.
 
VorZakone said:
Georgia is more likely to be attacked next.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Moldova will be looking over their shoulders too. Although I'm not sure if the Russian war machine will be able to afford multiple wars over the coming years, not just because of the losses in Ukraine but because of the crippling blows Russia's economy has taken. That said, capturing Georgia would likely be an easier task than Ukraine, who took steps to expand the size of their military after 2014.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I wonder what happens if the Americans start asking Israel "mate what the absolute feck?!"
Click to expand...
I wonder what Israel's angle is here. I doubt they'd want a Jewish president to be killed by a hit squad and might lobby for Zelensky to stay alive.

On the other hand, they might fear that the Ukrainian resistance inspires the Palestinians to take up weapons again. Every country that has representatives visiting Putin has its own interests but in this case, I'm not quite sure what Israel wants to discuss.
 
padr81 said:
Truest post in here. Russia are struggling no more or no less than most invasions.
Click to expand...

Not comparable at all. Significant longer distance (Baghdad fell in about 3-4 days after they reached the city) from where they were deployed (Kuwait) than Kyiv is from the border to Belarus, US had air superiority from pretty much day 1 and the RU casualties is minimum 10x more than what the US suffered during the entire Iraqi war.

I think even the staunchest pro-Russian military analyst would admit that they are struggling heavily so far.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
That’s not great…
Click to expand...

A western ally talking to Putin can only be a good thing. Bennett is pragmatic and is actually a good intermediary. Israel ultimately sits with the west in terms of allegiance, but regarding Ukraine he's been largely neutral while still calling for peace - a bit like India thus far.
 
Shakesey said:
Maybe they're just doing what Macron's doing? Why is Israel talking to Putin weird? Why are people surprised? I know I'm missing something here...
Click to expand...

I think this basically boils down to people disliking Israel because of the conflict with the Palestinians, and failing to understand that shades of grey are real, and Israel can actually be a good neutral intermediary where the Russia-Ukraine war is concerned.

TLDR: They think everything Israel does is bad.
 
Droid_Repairs said:
I think this basically boils down to people disliking Israel because of the conflict with the Palestinians, and failing to understand that shades of grey are real, and Israel can actually be a good neutral intermediary where the Russia-Ukraine war is concerned.

TLDR: They think everything Israel does is bad.
Click to expand...
Oy vey
 
BarstoolProphet said:
Not comparable at all. Significant longer distance (Baghdad fell in about 3-4 days after they reached the city) from where they were deployed (Kuwait) than Kyiv is from the border to Belarus, US had air superiority from pretty much day 1 and the RU casualties is minimum 10x more than what the US suffered during the entire Iraqi war.

I think even the staunchest pro-Russian military analyst would admit that they are struggling heavily so far.
Click to expand...

Probably over the top in my original comment.
What I'm curious to know is are the Russian casualties as high as what's said on social media or is it a bit of posturing. There is definitely a move by the west to make Russia look incompetent via information/misinformation. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle as always. Don't get me wrong I hope Ukraine hold them off for as long as it takes (with as little casualties on both sides as possible). I'm just skeptical that Russia are doing as poorly as they say.
 
Frosty said:
I imagine Israel is in a tricky position given the Russian involvement in Syria. If you piss off Putin, his armed forces are literally next door to them.
Click to expand...
Israel has a massive modern army. And around 200 nukes.
 
padr81 said:
Don't get me wrong I hope Ukraine hold them off for as long as it takes (with as little casualties on both sides as possible). I'm just skeptical that Russia are doing as poorly as they say.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you have to make sure that you don't go over the top while it's true that Russia is much more struggling than most expected, they are still on the front foot in this conflict.
 
As an aside, I do wonder what NATO and it’s members see as a realistic end game, from their perspective? Easy to say Russian withdrawal, Russian defeat, etc. But at this stage:
- Without NATO military intervention, surely Ukraine ultimately gets defeated? Even if it takes a long while. Is it realistic that arming Ukraine alone along with sanctions is sufficient to defeat the invasion?
- Assuming the above and happy to be corrected if not a fair assumption, I guess the west is by definition for Ukraine to be lost? Even if the assumption is false, the west must consider it an acceptable trade off to avoid a full scale war, to let Ukrainian cities get turned to rubble and it’s people suffer greatly?
- Or do we think they are aiming for something more seismic I.e changing Russia as we know it by destroying the economy and / or seeing Putin removed?

I ask because it’s all good we are throwing arms to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, but it surely (at least I hope) can’t purely be to give Ukraine a fighting chance and see Russian forces removed? It’s one thing to accept not getting involved with military to avoid escalating to a full scale war, but it’s another to think the end game is ok at simply Russia withdrawing from Ukraine? There must be more then that. It can’t be that Russia withdraws and we carry on as normal. Surely this can’t go unpunished and whilst we won’t ever invade (obviously), the objective here has to be fundamental change in Russia?
 
Droid_Repairs said:
A western ally talking to Putin can only be a good thing. Bennett is pragmatic and is actually a good intermediary. Israel ultimately sits with the west in terms of allegiance, but regarding Ukraine he's been largely neutral while still calling for peace - a bit like India thus far.
Click to expand...

Didn't Israel vote to condemn Russia in the UN the other day?
 
Raoul said:
Its to arm Ukraine with weapons and intelligence but avoid at all costs, a shooting war with Russia, all the while eroding Putin's power from within by bringing down the Russian economy.
Click to expand...
I understand that.

But surely its a case of NATO shooting at Russia just not pulling the trigger themselves? In which case it's already a shooting war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.