Ukraine Conflict - Alle Dinge unterliegen Interpretation je nachdem, was Interpretation zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt herrscht, ist eine Funktion der Macht und nicht die Wahrheit

[xzar_monty]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

 But the initial Western response is still a humanitarian one because we do care about the lives of Ukrainians

There most certainly was a lot of this in the response, especially from and within countries who aren't battling Russia for geopolitical dominance.

Power politics clearly plays into it as well, now especially, and it's also worthwhile to remember that humanitarian responses and power politics don't rule each other out. Given the vast amount of support that individuals from around the world have contributed in aid to Ukraine, it is heartening to see how much people care: there is an awful lot of good in humanity, sometimes bursting to come out.

 

One interesting thing about Russia's possible mobilization is the timeframe. To put it in more concrete terms: supposing that there is a general mobilization in Russia on or around May 9th, the next question is: when will this have any effect on the frontlines? Not immediately, and not even all that soon.

[xzar_monty]

5 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

I feel that Sweden in NATO would be a disgustingly hypocritical thing considering what our past stances are/have been.

Doesn't it look exceedingly likely that Sweden will want to join, though? This is what it looks like from the outside -- obviously I can't speak about the view from the inside.

As for past stances: I understand your point, but there is a huge change happening right now.

[Azdeus]

5 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Doesn't it look exceedingly likely that Sweden will want to join, though? This is what it looks like from the outside -- obviously I can't speak about the view from the inside.

As for past stances: I understand your point, but there is a huge change happening right now.

Well, most polls point to about a 50/50 split when it comes to public opinion, but then again it's an election year so if the politicians think it's in their benefit... you know how it goes, refer to my signature and all that. Almost all the political parties went to election with promises to not join NATO, and now that we're tested, having just two months ago declared that we won't be bullied, they're folding immediately.

[xzar_monty]

Mencken was wrong! Also hyperbolic in his word choices, to the point of being silly.

Thanks for the response, too. Will be interesting, to say the least, to see how it goes.

[Azdeus]

4 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Mencken was wrong! Also hyperbolic in his word choices, to the point of being silly.

Thanks for the response, too. Will be interesting, to say the least, to see how it goes.

Quite hyperbolic, but I think the quote is quite correct actually.

Very interesting, terryfingly so

[pmp10]

23 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

That's an interesting choice of word, there, "sacrifices". It most certainly would amount to a major defeat.

But if we disregard religious meanings, sacrifice would amount to something like "giving up something valuable for the sake of other considerations". What sort of valuable things (for itself) has Russia sacrificed? Certainly not its own soldiers. Ordnance and other equipment, I suppose, yes. I don't think it has exactly "sacrificed" its credibility and reputation, it has simply lost it.

So far some 10% of their GDP.
I'd also argue that prestige of their armed forces will be diminished because of this war. 
And yes - I imagine they would think of both as a sacrifice.

[xzar_monty]

1 minute ago, pmp10 said:

So far some 10% of their GDP.
I'd also argue that prestige of their armed forces will be diminished because of this war. 
And yes - I imagine they would think of both as a sacrifice.

Yep, you're probably quite right on both counts. Good points. Didn't think of GDP myself, but that's a good one.

[Malcador]

53 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Just to be clear so I dont make a  detailed post and its not what you asking

Are you asking why their is a perception that  prominent Western countries and the global media dont seem to care about Yemen, you not asking  why countries like SA, Kenya, Chile or NZ dont seem to care?

Wouldn't say it is perception. But not limited to some group, though.

[rjshae]

54 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

Well, most polls point to about a 50/50 split when it comes to public opinion, but then again it's an election year so if the politicians think it's in their benefit... you know how it goes, refer to my signature and all that. Almost all the political parties went to election with promises to not join NATO, and now that we're tested, having just two months ago declared that we won't be bullied, they're folding immediately.

It happened to the USA with Pearl Harbor; prior to that a significant number of Americans wanted no part in the conflict. Afterwards...

[xzar_monty]

Nice comparison!

[Azdeus]

14 minutes ago, rjshae said:

It happened to the USA with Pearl Harbor; prior to that a significant number of Americans wanted no part in the conflict. Afterwards...

He hasn't invaded Gotland though

[Sarex]

5 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

He hasn't invaded Gotland though

Yet!

[Malcador]

7 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

He hasn't invaded Gotland though

Soon...

 

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Azdeus said:

Well, most polls point to about a 50/50 split when it comes to public opinion, but then again it's an election year so if the politicians think it's in their benefit... you know how it goes, refer to my signature and all that. Almost all the political parties went to election with promises to not join NATO, and now that we're tested, having just two months ago declared that we won't be bullied, they're folding immediately.

In Finland support from Nato changed from one party publicly supporting it and 21% of population supporting joining to all put all parties publicly supporting joining to Nato and 65% of population supporting joining.

Change is mainly caused by fact that Russia is willing to sacrifice so much for little gain which caused people lose faith to foundation of Finland's defense which is to make attack cost so much that there is no benefit for doing so, but such defense doesn't work against enemy which is willing to sacrifice all for nothing.

Finland is also putting Sweden in difficult situation as big sunk of  Sweden defense currently relies on co-operation with Finland and it seems that Swedish politicians fear that they will lose that co-operation if Finland joins in Nato and Sweden does not. 

[Chilloutman]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

At least we have finally moved past the fake care for heroic Ukraine and started to openly admit that it's all about power politics. This also explains much better the 'fight to the last Ukrainian' stance because the goal is to take Russia down, not avoid a long and destructive war and the escalation risks it entails. Progress, of sorts.

Russia isn't going to stop because the whole point of the war is to compel Ukraine by cost imposition*. If the goal had been mainly to grab land, sending ultimatums and applying pressure on Ukraine for months or years before attacking would have been counterproductive. Of course Russians are insane/stupid and didn't think of this, but us galaxy brainers at Obsidian Entertainment forums see the picture clearly.

A general mobilization would help Russia little. Doctrinally, Russia has abandoned mass mobilization and lacks the reserve units and officer/NCO corps required to effectively train a large number of conscripts into something resembling competent soldiers. They may extend conscription terms and perhaps recall freshly discharged recruits who still remember which end of an AK goes toward the enemy, but options are limited.

*seems to have blown up in their face though, and now the costs imposed on Russia are considerable. Still, the war is being fought in Ukraine, and if Russians decide that all they can do is dig in and simply crank up the damage with standoff weapons and artillery, it'll become a test of endurance which Ukraine may not win. For example, Ukrainian air defenses may currently prevent effective Russian air support of ground operations. But they may not be able to prevent Russia from using its massive strategic bomber fleet to level cities with iron bombs. And then we would see what indiscriminately targeting civilians actually looks like.

Hopefully it won't come to that, but the outlook isn't good.

I would disagree on you first paragraph. I REALLY don't think it was that at start. Now maybe. But No-one in the west wanted Russia to do this or play such games with them. No-one. Everyone knows costs of those power games and franky no-one really thought Russia is willing to sacrifice so much for basically nothing either. Even if Russia make their land grab now and it ends in peace. Who gained what? Russia reputation in west is ruined for another 20+ years and no-one is going to do business there for at least that time and they gained what? Broken and disfunctional land with high risk of internal conflict? I just don't see it

[Mamoulian War]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

" In Slovakia, media do not care, because like 99% of our population, have no clue where Yemen lies" 

I appreciate your honesty, it makes a refreshing change to the race card being played. The truth is always the best response 

I am being sick from playing the race card at every single opportunity... Yes in all of Europe there are lots of racist, but not everything is turning around them... Most of the time, the true reason, why is something happening is somewhere completely else... In case we would be speaking about Syria, there would be much more reason for the race card, because the Slovakia media completely failed about it, and the neonazis have stolen the narrative... And guess, who is paying Slovak neonazi parties? Russia... There are a lot of lawsuits now against them, because our secret service finally found some evidence about direct involvement of Russian embassy with neonazi disinformation in Slovakia...

 

TLDR; behind every **** happening in Eastern Europe, you'll find a Russian ****...

Edited May 3, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

If Russia were to "stop" though, what would that look like? They'd have to lose Crimea.  The British have said that is a war aim - although it is hilarious that they have "war aims".

Particularly funny when Britain has depopulated islands half a world away to hand over to the US for a military base (the one they've spent the past 20 years droning civilians in the Middle East from) and refuse to hand it back to its rightful owners. Still that forced depopulation was long ago, back in the dark ages of, uh hmm, 1973. The people of Britain also aren't responsible, unlike Russians they get to vote in democratic elections for their leaders and this means they aren't responsible for their leader's actions unlike the Russians, who for some reason are.

But hey, demand someone hand back land full of Russians who want to be in Russia. It's particularly stupid for other reasons too, per bottom.

3 hours ago, 213374U said:

A general mobilization would help Russia little.

There isn't going to be a general mobilisation, nukes are actively more likely. Some sort of limited mobilisation or proroguing of the current conscript intake's term though is a lot more likely.

2 hours ago, pmp10 said:

I'd also argue that prestige of their armed forces will be diminished because of this war.

There's a risk in that for the west as well though, tied up with demands like 'hand back Crimea'. What happens if they, well, don't end up handing back Crimea? You've knocked the spigot out on western arms deliveries and... nothing has changed on the ground. You've shown what your conditions are for victory, and haven't achieved them- that means you've, well, lost, doesn't it? All those years supplies of western wunderwaffe NLAWs/ Javelins/ PanzerFausts/ Stingers/ Starkstreaks etc and you didn't achieve your goals? Will the west recover from this massive collapse in their credibility, and why would anyone want to buy arms from them when they can't win against cheap Russian tat?

You've essentially got two options; the war aims are meant to actually be fulfilled, whatever the cost and whether it takes, say, two million Ukrainians dead. In which case Alexander Boris de  FFeffffel is literally doing the fight to the last Ukrainian thing and because western prestige must be protected at all costs. Or they're not meant to be fulfilled and just make the west look weak when they aren't.

And ironically, Russia made exactly the same mistake a couple of months ago. Half their 'prestige' problems come from implying that they'd roll straight over the Ukrainians and be in a position to take Kiev and replace Zelensky etc and not doing so. If they'd been more realistic their prestige would be in far better shape.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Azdeus]

47 minutes ago, Elerond said:

In Finland support from Nato changed from one party publicly supporting it and 21% of population supporting joining to all put all parties publicly supporting joining to Nato and 65% of population supporting joining.

Change is mainly caused by fact that Russia is willing to sacrifice so much for little gain which caused people lose faith to foundation of Finland's defense which is to make attack cost so much that there is no benefit for doing so, but such defense doesn't work against enemy which is willing to sacrifice all for nothing.

Finland is also putting Sweden in difficult situation as big sunk of  Sweden defense currently relies on co-operation with Finland and it seems that Swedish politicians fear that they will lose that co-operation if Finland joins in Nato and Sweden does not. 

Yeah, it's sort of the same here ofcourse, there's two party that is still hard against it. The Left Party and Greens want it to be put to a public vote, and then follow the will of the people. It sucks that Sweden stopped our peace time conscription in something like 2010, which to the end was a pathetic 4% of eligible people being accepted for it, so we are woefully unprepared right now. Atleast you have a decent army at the moment. I still think a better option would be to increase Swedish defensive spending and have an alliance between us.

That said, I'd respect Finland for joining NATO, you have better reasons than Swedes do. I honestly don't think Kanisatha is alone at all in his opinion of Sweden joining, I think NATO'd take Sweden in as the retarded cousin to Finland in a way, they already have full access basically to our weapons tech so they don't need us in NATO for that, and I do belive the military industry is lobbying for it, because we have to buy metric ****-tonnes of equipment to get up to NATO standard.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Azdeus

[xzar_monty]

7 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

There's a risk in that for the west as well though, tied up with demands like 'hand back Crimea'. What happens if they, well, don't end up handing back Crimea?

Hang on, have we seen this demand? I don't think I have, but then I don't follow everything.

This is just to clarify, i.e. whether you intended that as an example of what may happen or a description of what already has.

[xzar_monty]

8 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

and I do belive the military industry is lobbying for it, because we have to buy metric ****-tonnes of equipment to get up to NATO standard.

The state that the Swedish army was in just a little while ago really beggars belief, considering the country's geographic location. Some heavy naivety going on there, along with the aforementioned attitude of doing business during wartime (and almost certainly some other stuff I'm not too aware of).

[Malcador]

5 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Hang on, have we seen this demand? I don't think I have, but then I don't follow everything.

This is just to clarify, i.e. whether you intended that as an example of what may happen or a description of what already has.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61251698

At least she didn't say Voronezh as well.  British politicians sure are very vocal of late, Truss, Wallace and BoJo.    I believe a Polish official had something similar, but can't find a decent source at the moment - maybe they meant taken in this war rather than 2014

[xzar_monty]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61251698

At least she didn't say Voronezh as well.  British politicians sure are very vocal of late, Truss, Wallace and BoJo.

Interesting, thanks for that. Really hadn't seen that one.

British politicians are... well, what can you say. Boris Johnson is a marvelous joke in every other sense except in that he's not funny.

[Azdeus]

7 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

The state that the Swedish army was in just a little while ago really beggars belief, considering the country's geographic location. Some heavy naivety going on there, along with the aforementioned attitude of doing business during wartime (and almost certainly some other stuff I'm not too aware of).

Greed actually, the right stopped it, but we got some tax cuts! The left party actually wanted to dismantle the army completely up until two years ago if I recall correctly, lol.

[kanisatha]

5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Interesting. How do you reckon the situation in Scandinavia / the Nordic countries being different in case A) Finland is in NATO but Sweden is not vs. B) both Finland and Sweden being in NATO? The prevailing view here the north appears to be that situation A is, to put it mildly, not ideal.

Sweden is a pain in the ass.

From a purely military standpoint, yes, A) would be problematic and B) would be strongly preferred, not because Sweden brings anything militarily significant to NATO but because of geography and logistics for NATO defending Finland. This is why NATO itself plus military analysts are in favor of B). But politically, because NATO has that stupid rule of 'everyone must agree' for anything to happen, I am quite sure Sweden will be a constant thorn in the side of NATO decisionmaking, especially from one government configuration to another, which makes it even worse because there will be no consistency or predictability to how Sweden will respond to any given crisis.

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, Azdeus said:

He hasn't invaded Gotland though

Just you wait… Kofod has a secret pact with Lavrov regarding the partition of Sweden.

 

Scania will come home again