Ukraine Conflict - Drei Kameraden

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Mamoulian War said:

There, fixed it for you.

I wish you could spend a week reading all the russian troll farm **** spewed everyday in the eastern europe, where these "outlets" killed few thousand people with false medical information... Maybe it would recalibrate your view on free speech as well... Free Speech is about being free to tell anything I want, without being prosecuted for it. Not about being free to spread lies, which are causing real harm to gullible people...

You didn't really fix anything. My rant wasn't about free speech (That's Gromnir's desk), but against the totalitarian principles of governments limiting what you are allowed to read and see.

 

Edit: Point in case, the Australian government cracking down on the free press and even individual YouTubers when they reveal uncomfortable truths. Yes, the media may be utter crap, but I believe it to be one of the hallmarks of a free society, that people are allowed to form their own opinions and not have it dictated by the government.

 

Edit2: My own experiences with RT are two videos I saw some years ago. One where Putin put some regional administrator in his place and one where he met some young girl and everyone was fawning over him and his generosity. Goebbels couldn't have done it better. Never felt like watching again, so no, don't really have  horse in the race there. It's the principle that matters, people should decide for themselves if the message is laughable or not. At least in a free society.

[Mamoulian War]

18 minutes ago, Gorth said:

You didn't really fix anything. My rant wasn't about free speech (That's Gromnir's desk), but against the totalitarian principles of governments limiting what you are allowed to read and see.

 

Edit: Point in case, the Australian government cracking down on the free press and even individual YouTubers when they reveal uncomfortable truths. Yes, the media may be utter crap, but I believe it to be one of the hallmarks of a free society, that people are allowed to form their own opinions and not have it dictated by the government.

 

Edit2: My own experiences with RT are two videos I saw some years ago. One where Putin put some regional administrator in his place and one where he met some young girl and everyone was fawning over him and his generosity. Goebbels couldn't have done it better. Never felt like watching again, so no, don't really have  horse in the race there. It's the principle that matters, people should decide for themselves if the message is laughable or not. At least in a free society.

I've heard about the Australia cracking at the journalists and YT. And that is wrong. RT is currently doing propaganda for country, which in war with our ally and eastern neighbour. IMHO allowing them to continue to air in the current situation, would be on par, to allowing to air German propaganda during WW2 in France or UK. That is simply bull****. Again, keep in mind, that we are currently in war albeit everyone is trying to act that we are not. The fact is we are now officially on the official Russian list of enemy countries. In this case removing all access to Russian propaganda is required, to fight against possible hybrid attacks against the stability of our country.

In any other circumstance, I would mostly agree to you. But not on the brink of WW3...

[xzar_monty]

12 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

In any other circumstance, I would mostly agree to you. But not on the brink of WW3...

By the way, someone (sorry, can't remember how it was but I think it was a historian) has pointed out that WW3 has already begun -- but because it's still in its earliest stages, we the ones living it right now cannot know it yet. This is a possibility. Let us dearly hope that it is not true.

Edited March 13, 2022 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, xzar_monty said:

By the way, someone (sorry, can't remember how it was but I think it was a historian) has pointed out that WW3 has already begun -- but because it's still in its earliest stages, we the ones living it right now cannot know it yet. This is a possibility. Let us dearly hope that it is not true.

But surely before we can call something WW3  it has to mean the worlds superpowers are at war. The Cold War wasnt WW3 but it could have led to that but Mutually Assured Destruction prevented that 

So if the Cold War wasnt WW3 than I dont think its accurate to say this current tension with Russia WW3 

Yes Russia has created huge tensions by this invasion of Ukraine but we not at world war level until countries declare war on each other ?

[Mamoulian War]

1 minute ago, xzar_monty said:

By the way, someone (sorry, can't remember how it was but I think it was a historian) has pointed out that WW3 has already begun -- but because it's still in its earliest stages, we the ones living it right now cannot know it yet. This is a possibility. Let us dearly hope that it is not true.

Well, the fact is, that the situation in the last few years is about shift of power between USA, China, EU, Russia, India. And everyone wants a piece of the pie. The UA situation will be definitely a big shift in the world order, depending on who wins.

IMHO if the west in the coming weeks breaks and politicians start to ask about the end of Russia sanctions, the next war will be in Taiwan and Moldova/Georgia.

[kanisatha]

Two things that have come up here are now pretty well confirmed from what I'm reading: (1) In parts of Ukraine under Russian occupation, mayors and other top officials at the city and oblast levels are being kidnapped and murdered by Russian troops or mercenaries. The expectation is that they will soon be replaced by Russian appointees who will then make declarations the Russians want. What we expect to see happen to the Ukrainian national government eventually, we are already seeing happening at the lower levels of Ukrainian government.

(2) The story about Russia using "commissar squads" to execute their own soldiers whose enthusiasm for battle is not what it is supposed to be is being confirmed by independent sources inside Ukraine.

[Gorth]

29 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

I've heard about the Australia cracking at the journalists and YT. And that is wrong. RT is currently doing propaganda for country, which in war with our ally and eastern neighbour. IMHO allowing them to continue to air in the current situation, would be on par, to allowing to air German propaganda during WW2 in France or UK. That is simply bull****. Again, keep in mind, that we are currently in war albeit everyone is trying to act that we are not. The fact is we are now officially on the official Russian list of enemy countries. In this case removing all access to Russian propaganda is required, to fight against possible hybrid attacks against the stability of our country.

In any other circumstance, I would mostly agree to you. But not on the brink of WW3...

See one of my previous posts in this thread. Different rules applies in the self interest of countries who are active participants in a war. As long as they don't pretend not to be that is

 

[Malcador]

1 minute ago, kanisatha said:

(2) The story about Russia using "commissar squads" to execute their own soldiers whose enthusiasm for battle is not what it is supposed to be is being confirmed by independent sources inside Ukraine.

Have any of those ? Didn't hunt too hard but all I found was Ukrainian agencies.  Did see one POW say they were shooting deserters, though.

[ComradeYellow]

2 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

I am wondering, who invited Putin to Russia in his last speech? Hmm, Looks like Syrian militants to me.  And I am also wondering who is the leader of Wagner Group, which got decorated by Putin himself in 2016 in Kremlin? Hmm, looks like Dmitry Utkin, who openly admires nazism

Quick search shows Utkin appears to be distancing himself from his dark past, and so are lots of Russians who formerly fostered far right beliefs and are now warming up to their more communistic past.

Ironically, it's Western liberals who appear to be distancing themselves from their more pro-socialist past and are now warming up to fascism, just check this:

Spoiler

Scary **** going on in the West, boi.

[kanisatha]

15 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

By the way, someone (sorry, can't remember how it was but I think it was a historian) has pointed out that WW3 has already begun -- but because it's still in its earliest stages, we the ones living it right now cannot know it yet. This is a possibility. Let us dearly hope that it is not true.

And I, as an academic, have also said this to news reporters interviewing me and in public events at my university.

What we are going through now events very similar to events in Europe, Africa, and Asia in the 1930s prior to September 1, 1939. And as far as I am concerned, the single most important and most powerful *lesson* Putin is learning from the Ukrainian war is that the West (both the US and Western Europe) is terrified of the prospect of (stumbling into) WW3, and will go to great lengths to avoid such a prospect even if it means giving the Russians what they want (see all the hand-wringing at both the governmental and public levels in major Western countries). So making threats about "WW3" is now in Russia's interest as a way of cowing the West and getting concessions. And China, and even states like Iran and North Korea, are also learning this lesson.

Allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by fear of WW3 is the surest path to WW3. Mark my words: by not being willing to fight the Russians here and now we have not averted WW3. Far from it, we have only strengthened the prospect of a war with Russia down the road, in a much worse situation. And when (not if) the Russians next engage in naked aggression against a weak neighbor (I would put money on a lightning strike on the Baltic states a few years from now), they will be fully joined by the Chinese, and likely even an Iran flush with cash and all the components for a nuke, and a North Korea with nuke-armed missiles that can hold the continental US hostage.

[kanisatha]

8 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Have any of those ? Didn't hunt too hard but all I found was Ukrainian agencies.  Did see one POW say they were shooting deserters, though.

Yeah aid agencies have said they've seen the bodies and taken statements from eye witnesses.

[xzar_monty]

11 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

(1) In parts of Ukraine under Russian occupation, mayors and other top officials at the city and oblast levels are being kidnapped and murdered by Russian troops or mercenaries. The expectation is that they will soon be replaced by Russian appointees who will then make declarations the Russians want. What we expect to see happen to the Ukrainian national government eventually, we are already seeing happening at the lower levels of Ukrainian government.

This may lead to an even fiercer Ukrainian resistance than before. The resistance will ultimately prove to be futile, given Russia's vast superiority in numbers, but until then, the resistance may well be fierce indeed. I've already read reports of Ukrainians saying how the invasion has united the country like nothing else. Of course I understand that this is not the whole truth, but there are historical precedents to this: an invasion can give a country and its citizens tremendous strength of character, which may translate to surprising military success.

But still, all this is such a waste, of course. And Ukraine looks doomed unless something surprising happens in Russia.

[xzar_monty]

2 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

And as far as I am concerned, the single most important and most powerful *lesson* Putin is learning from the Ukrainian war is that the West (both the US and Western Europe) is terrified of the prospect of (stumbling into) WW3, and will go to great lengths to avoid such a prospect even if it means giving the Russians what they want

This seems to be the crux of the matter. The only thing keeping "the West" from launching a full-scale counter-attack and demolishing the Russian troops is the threat of nuclear war. When you look at the possible permutations of how that might go, it doesn't really matter which way it does, because they are all quite rotten.

So, the question is: can a nuclear power do anything it wants to its weaker neighbours?

The answer, unfortunately, would seem to be yes.

[Malcador]

Wonder if nuclear proliferation will get worse.

[kanisatha]

3 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

This may lead to an even fiercer Ukrainian resistance than before. The resistance will ultimately prove to be futile, given Russia's vast superiority in numbers, but until then, the resistance may well be fierce indeed. I've already read reports of Ukrainians saying how the invasion has united the country like nothing else. Of course I understand that this is not the whole truth, but there are historical precedents to this: an invasion can give a country and its citizens tremendous strength of character, which may translate to surprising military success.

But still, all this is such a waste, of course. And Ukraine looks doomed unless something surprising happens in Russia.

Yes indeed. And very sad, because the Ukrainians have showed themselves to be a worthy people. But they are being sacrificed/thrown under the bus for the benefit of Europe and America (much like we once did to Abyssinia and Czechoslovakia).

[xzar_monty]

19 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

(2) The story about Russia using "commissar squads" to execute their own soldiers whose enthusiasm for battle is not what it is supposed to be is being confirmed by independent sources inside Ukraine.

Russia has never had any qualms when it comes to slaughtering its own citizens. After all, the most important Russian of the 20th century earned his reputation by describing a whole gulag archipelago dedicated to precisely this.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of history is not what it should be, and so I cannot comment on how unique (or not) Russia is in this respect.

[xzar_monty]

Incidentally, an otherwise not entirely convincing historian once pointed out that 1945 was the year when the world lost a kind of innocence: up until that point, it was not possible for "one bungling idiot" to do that much irreversible damage. But then, it all changed.

[kanisatha]

2 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

This seems to be the crux of the matter. The only thing keeping "the West" from launching a full-scale counter-attack and demolishing the Russian troops is the threat of nuclear war. When you look at the possible permutations of how that might go, it doesn't really matter which way it does, because they are all quite rotten.

So, the question is: can a nuclear power do anything it wants to its weaker neighbours?

The answer, unfortunately, would seem to be yes.

Exactly! For 70 years academics have been asking this exact question, and hoping we (including policymakers) can come up with a strong policy approach to this conundrem. But we still don't have a good answer.

Here's what I see happening a couple of years from now. Russia will launch a surprise attack on the Baltic states, with a plan on taking control of them very quickly before NATO forces can be mobilized, both politically and militarily, to respond. They also won't do the months of build-up on the border like with Ukraine, because that will give NATO the opportunity to counter the build-up. Then, once they have conquered those states, and NATO begins to get its act together under Article 5 to counterattack, the Russians will say to NATO: we will withdraw from all other NATO territories, but the three Baltic states are ours. Let us have them, or we will use tactical nukes against your forces trying to take them back (and maybe even some of your cities). So NATO's choice will be accept an escalation to nuclear war, including cities in Germany, France, UK, and the US coming under attack, or sacrifice the Baltic states for "the greater good."

[xzar_monty]

2 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Here's what I see happening a couple of years from now. Russia will launch a surprise attack on the Baltic states, with a plan on taking control of them very quickly before NATO forces can be mobilized, both politically and militarily, to respond.

My knowledge of military affairs is pitiful at best, so I probably shouldn't comment at all, but I wonder how easy it is to carry out a surprise attack in today's world, given NATO's forthcoming endless vigilance towards Russia.

[Malcador]

Not quite sure how that makes sense, at least in terms of them being emboldened to do so.  They're attacking a non-NATO member now, so NATO's level of involvement is totally voluntary, but attacking a NATO member such as Lithuania or Estonia is different, no ? 

In any case, their army is performing so poorly, seems any NATO member would hold their own quite well.

[kanisatha]

9 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Wonder if nuclear proliferation will get worse.

Nuclear proliferation experts (as I'm in this area myself, I'm quite plugged into what they're saying) are now publicly expressing their very real concerns on this question. "If only Ukraine had had nukes ....." That's is how many smaller states that perceive a threat from a larger neighbor see this war. If I were the leader of such a state, I'd go full-bore in pursuit of nukes. To trust the US or NATO or, God forbid, the UN (what a joke) to protect you is folly on the scale of Melos v. Athens.

[xzar_monty]

3 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Not quite sure how that makes sense, at least in terms of them being emboldened to do so.

It's not as if the current events in Ukraine make sense, either. I am unsure as to what the next target countries might be, but I also think that if the Ukraine war ends in a way that Russia considers to be a military victory, the probability of Russia continuing its attacks will be 100%.

[kanisatha]

3 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

My knowledge of military affairs is pitiful at best, so I probably shouldn't comment at all, but I wonder how easy it is to carry out a surprise attack in today's world, given NATO's forthcoming endless vigilance towards Russia.

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

Not quite sure how that makes sense, at least in terms of them being emboldened to do so.  They're attacking a non-NATO member now, so NATO's level of involvement is totally voluntary, but attacking a NATO member such as Lithuania or Estonia is different, no ? 

In any case, their army is performing so poorly, seems any NATO member would hold their own quite well.

Yes it would *not* be a surprise attack like Pearl Harbor. But relatively speaking, it can happen fast enough to prevent meaningful NATO support in a timely manner. And NATO membership for the Baltic states is ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether states like France and Germany and UK and USA are willing to sacrifice their own cities for the sake of (their Article 5 commitment to) the Baltic states.

Recall that famous exchange between DeGaulle and Kennedy in 1962 when France withdrew from NATO's military structure in pursuit of its independent nuclear deterrent. Responding to Kennedy's pleas for DeGaulle to reconsider, DeGaulle said to Kennedy: "Will you sacrifice New York to avenge Paris?" And Kennedy did not have an answer for DeGaulle.

[xzar_monty]

I wonder if we can put ANY HOPE AT ALL in the fact that the majority of Russian leaders behind this war are former KGB men in their very late 60s and that there's at least the possibility of a newer generation coming through fairly soon.

Let us keep in mind that Russia has handled its affairs so remarkably well that life expectancy there is significantly shorther than in many other places.

Edited March 13, 2022 by xzar_monty

[kanisatha]

10 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Not quite sure how that makes sense, at least in terms of them being emboldened to do so.  They're attacking a non-NATO member now, so NATO's level of involvement is totally voluntary, but attacking a NATO member such as Lithuania or Estonia is different, no ? 

In any case, their army is performing so poorly, seems any NATO member would hold their own quite well.

It is my understanding that all the Baltic state governments have now requested that US troops (not NATO troops but explicitly US troops) be permanently stationed in each of their countries. But the US (and NATO) are hemming and hawing because they "don't want to upset or provoke" the Russians. This is the kind of nonsense typical of liberal democracies that the Russians will fully exploit.

As for the performance of Russian forces, they will learn from their Ukraine experience and will fix most of their problems before their next war. And in the Baltics they will be fighting the militaries of the Baltic states, not major NATO allied forces, in the first stage of the war. And as much as I have respect for the people of the Baltics, their militaries will not even be a speed bump for the Russians.