Ukraine Conflict - "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

[kanisatha]

24 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Can you imagine any war where a country is invaded and when people fight back its considered " a play for sympathy "

Because how dare those annoying Ukrainians be courageous and brave and stand up to the Russians and fight back, and in doing so make us feckless and amoral Westerners who don't want to be bothered doing anything to help them look bad!!

[pmp10]

4 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

I'm sorry but that's just utter nonsense. How is it not a military operation if territories are being fought over with armies using weapons? How would you define a military operation, then, if this is not one? The fact that it has political overtones does not mean that it is not a military operation, too.

That's because there is no military logic to the Ukrainian offensive anymore, it has been clear that strategic objectives are unattainable for quite some time now.
We know US intelligence always thought it a long-shot and maybe trying to pull it off in June/July made sense, but by now political consideration have overruled any military ones.

[Zoraptor]

The issue is probably with using 'sympathy' instead of a more neutral term. There's a bunch of things at work that is keeping them from calling it off and guilt tripping- as implied by using sympathy- Scholtz, Macron etc would be pretty low on the list. The manpower and equipment losses far outstrip gains and that is unlikely to change for sure, but the reason for keeping going is very likely to be the general political/ morale damage admitting to failure would cause. Which is a very real concern and could be lessened by taking [somewhere significant] after which they could declare victory and stop (and is also likely the reason for the number of attempted 'spectaculars' of dubious military utility). Personally, I find that approach stupid when the only targets available are Tokmak and Bakhmut which would take over a year to capture at current rates and when your manpower is bad enough you're using near Germany 1945 levels of conscription already.

The 'funny' thing is how statements have ended up just about perfectly mirroring what was said about Bakhmut 6 months ago just with the people saying them reversed. That was a political decision from Russia, a Pyrrhic victory with ludicrous losses for territory gained and the last gasp of an exhausted army from one side; necessary and would make progress easier and actually losses were fine from the other. Neither of which exactly played out as stated. End of the day though at least Bakhmut and Soledar were decently large towns and you didn't have media describing Sakko/ Vansetti as a 'city' to big up the gains.

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, pmp10 said:

That's because there is no military logic to the Ukrainian offensive anymore, it has been clear that strategic objectives are unattainable for quite some time now.

I believe they've dialed it back to reaching Tokmak, so there's that.

[Zoraptor]

Tokmak was always the sensible option on the principle of 'under promise, over deliver'. Though in this case it looks like it'd still have been 'under promise, under deliver' it was still more sensible than talking about Melitopol, let alone Mariupol or Crimea. All that talk has resulted in is making the offensive look like a worse failure.

Of course, talking too much about the offensive and its aims publicly was also a big part of the problem, albeit probably inevitable given media interest.

[Malcador]

Releasing a trailer for the offensive was also a great idea, hah

[pmp10]

11 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The issue is probably with using 'sympathy' instead of a more neutral term. There's a bunch of things at work that is keeping them from calling it off and guilt tripping- as implied by using sympathy- Scholtz, Macron etc would be pretty low on the list.

I think it's justified at least as far as US goes.
Pushing for another breakthrough attempt in September was done solely to silence growing criticism with more heroic (if pointless) Ukrainian deaths. 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, pmp10 said:

I think it's justified at least as far as US goes.
Pushing for another breakthrough attempt in September was done solely to silence growing criticism with more heroic (if pointless) Ukrainian deaths. 

I realize English is not your first language and things get lost in translation. But explain to me  how defending your country and dying in that defense is pointless?

Do you believe defending a country against a Russian invasion is pointless or do you support defending your country against some  invasions and not others ?

So for example when Poland fought against the Nazi invasion  in WW2 and lost was that pointless and Poland  should  have surrendered?

 

[xzar_monty]

2 hours ago, pmp10 said:

Pushing for another breakthrough attempt in September was done solely to silence growing criticism with more heroic (if pointless) Ukrainian deaths. 

I am somewhat puzzled by the word "solely" here. Where does such certainty come from? Where have you gathered the information needed for statements like this?

[Malcador]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I realize English is not your first language and things get lost in translation. But explain to me  how defending your country and dying in that defense is pointless?

Do you believe defending a country against a Russian invasion is pointless or do you support defending your country against some  invasions and not others ?

So for example when Poland fought against the Nazi invasion  in WW2 and lost was that pointless and Poland  should  have surrendered?

 

Or he could have meant that as in he thinks the offensive wasn't going to succeed in the first place.   Probably was some political pressure to get on with it and it is a test of sorts for further aid, but I don't think they'd just throw the dice

[kanisatha]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I realize English is not your first language and things get lost in translation. But explain to me  how defending your country and dying in that defense is pointless?

Do you believe defending a country against a Russian invasion is pointless or do you support defending your country against some  invasions and not others ?

So for example when Poland fought against the Nazi invasion  in WW2 and lost was that pointless and Poland  should  have surrendered?

 

To quote John Stark's succinct and pithy words: "Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils."

[BruceVC]

49 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Or he could have meant that as in he thinks the offensive wasn't going to succeed in the first place.   Probably was some political pressure to get on with it and it is a test of sorts for further aid, but I don't think they'd just throw the dice

But that doesnt really make sense if thats what he meant. Remember people kept saying " when is the counter-offensive going to start " because the Russian offensive  was reversed and they had retreated to eastern parts of the country 

And obviously one way to end the war is  to drive the Russians back or end there appetite to stay in the  country. So the Ukrainian offensive had to occur at some point. So again I dont understand why  anyone would consider the losses pointless when they are an expected part of any war and the strategy that was necessary

Unless you can think of another way to end the Russian invasion?

 

[Sarex]

21 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

To quote John Stark's succinct and pithy words: "Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils."

Until it's your turn to die.

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Until it's your turn to die.

 If Serbia was invaded by Croatia or Kosovo would  you just surrender or would  you fight back in your own way?

There is valid and legitimate reason for people to fight and die for freedom and the Ukrainians are no different to anyone else who has fought in wars where countries are invaded 

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, Sarex said:

Until it's your turn to die.

Or for a quotier response: Lord Farquaad "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".

We're well past the stage where it's all willing volunteers fighting because dulce et decorum est pro Ucrainsca mori. Easy to say Zelensky is doing it all for the freedoms, you might not get the same response saying it to someone dragged off the street in Odessa or Poltava by conscription officers and being ordered to bum rush Russian lines in a 70s M113.

[Keyrock]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And obviously one way to end the war is  to drive the Russians back or end there appetite to stay in the  country. So the Ukrainian offensive had to occur at some point. So again I dont understand why  anyone would consider the losses pointless when they are an expected part of any war and the strategy that was necessary

Unless you can think of another way to end the Russian invasion?

 

Diplomacy. It would be one thing if I could see any scenario where Ukraine could take back the Donbas, let alone Crimea, but I don't. I understand fighting for freedom and one's homeland, but there comes a point where one needs to recognize an unwinnable situation and make a plea for the best diplomatic deal they can get. Unfortunately, I fear, the time when Ukraine was in the best position to get a deal was nearly a year ago and I can't see them getting back enough territory to put themselves in that position again.

The thing is, there's no scenario where Russia just leaves the Donbas, this isn't like Afghanistan. I'm not going to spend several paragraphs explaining the geopolitical situation, nor the many times Russia has been invaded via the very strip of land they are currently occupying, nor the geography of the Eurasian Steppe and why it's so important. Suffice to say that Russia considers NATO in Ukraine an existential threat, and rightfully so. There is no giving up the Donbas for Russia, it's not happening. I'm Polish, us Poles are all too well acquainted with Russians. We have a very long history with them, a lot of it not exactly friendly. Russians are no strangers to wars of attrition, which is exactly what they're in currently. They excel at this type of war because they have the mentality and the manpower. The Russians will send as many men as it will take for as long as it takes. Even if Ukrainians are prepared to do the same they are facing an overwhelming manpower deficit and Russia has the defender's advantage. In this situation the best the Ukrainians can reasonably hope for is to trade even, but trading even is nowhere near good enough when you are staring at a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 manpower disadvantage, not to mention that Russia has an order of magnitude larger a population from which to replenish their troops.

[BruceVC]

13 hours ago, Keyrock said:

Diplomacy. It would be one thing if I could see any scenario where Ukraine could take back the Donbas, let alone Crimea, but I don't. I understand fighting for freedom and one's homeland, but there comes a point where one needs to recognize an unwinnable situation and make a plea for the best diplomatic deal they can get. Unfortunately, I fear, the time when Ukraine was in the best position to get a deal was nearly a year ago and I can't see them getting back enough territory to put themselves in that position again.

The thing is, there's no scenario where Russia just leaves the Donbas, this isn't like Afghanistan. I'm not going to spend several paragraphs explaining the geopolitical situation, nor the many times Russia has been invaded via the very strip of land they are currently occupying, nor the geography of the Eurasian Steppe and why it's so important. Suffice to say that Russia considers NATO in Ukraine an existential threat, and rightfully so. There is no giving up the Donbas for Russia, it's not happening. I'm Polish, us Poles are all too well acquainted with Russians. We have a very long history with them, a lot of it not exactly friendly. Russians are no strangers to wars of attrition, which is exactly what they're in currently. They excel at this type of war because they have the mentality and the manpower. The Russians will send as many men as it will take for as long as it takes. Even if Ukrainians are prepared to do the same they are facing an overwhelming manpower deficit and Russia has the defender's advantage. In this situation the best the Ukrainians can reasonably hope for is to trade even, but trading even is nowhere near good enough when you are staring at a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 manpower disadvantage, not to mention that Russia has an order of magnitude larger a population from which to replenish their troops.

I appreciate your feedback even if we disagree on certain topics because the definition of a debate is where you have different opinions on topics, it would be boring and pointless if we had the same opinion

So I want to ask you few questions about your understanding of the invasion. I am not clear on a few things from this post 

Lets start with this, do you personally believe the invasion by Russia was justified and if so why? Is it because what you mentioned around " Suffice to say that Russia considers NATO in Ukraine an existential threat"

Or is that really not your point and you dont believe the invasion was justified or legitimate but the reality is the cost to Ukraine is too high to continue fighting if you think just of things like the attrition rate that Russia can ostensibly afford 

And its important question because some people and Vatniks argue that the invasion was necessary to ensure the security of Russia. So my question is do you think the invasion was necessary and why and if so how was the security of Russia threatened by Ukraine in your opinion?

 

 

 

[Keyrock]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Lets start with this, do you personally believe the invasion by Russia was justified and if so why? Is it because what you mentioned around " Suffice to say that Russia considers NATO in Ukraine an existential threat"

Or is that really not your point and you dont believe the invasion was justified or legitimate but the reality is the cost to Ukraine is too high to continue fighting if you think just of things like the attrition rate that Russia can ostensibly afford 

And its important question because some people and Vatniks argue that the invasion was necessary to ensure the security of Russia. So my question is do you think the invasion was necessary and why and if so how was the security of Russia threatened by Ukraine in your opinion?

 

 

 

First off, let's start with any "expert" that say this was an unprovoked attack by a madman is either ignorant or lying, my money is on lying. This was absolutely provoked by NATO, and knowingly. I'm not absolving Russia of responsibility, I think this invasion is horrible, but from the Russian point of view it's necessary. Russia bad and NATO bad are not mutually exclusive, they can both be true, and in this case they are. Russia is bad for invading a sovereign nation and NATO is bad for knowingly pushing them into it. NATO has been pushing toward and encircling Russia for years, decades, and putting missile bases near its border. How do you think the US would react if Russian-allied missile bases started showing up near its borders, say in Canada and/or Mexico? Ukraine holds a special strategic place. Not only could (and would) NATO place more missile bases next to a big chunk of Russia's border, but this is also where the Eurasian Steppe crosses into Russia. This is a vast, open plain where an enemy, like NATO, can line up column after column after column of its tanks and troops and roll into Russia. From the Russian perspective this is unacceptable, they can't let that happen.

[Lexx]

That's some deja vu. i'll just repeat what I wrote 2 years ago: If russia wouldn't be such a huge **** to all its neighbors, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to join NATO.

[bugarup]

24 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

First off, let's start with any "expert" that say this was an unprovoked attack by a madman is either ignorant or lying, my money is on lying. This was absolutely provoked by NATO, and knowingly. I'm not absolving Russia of responsibility, I think this invasion is horrible, but from the Russian point of view it's necessary. Russia bad and NATO bad are not mutually exclusive, they can both be true, and in this case they are. Russia is bad for invading a sovereign nation and NATO is bad for knowingly pushing them into it. NATO has been pushing toward and encircling Russia for years, decades, and putting missile bases near its border. How do you think the US would react if Russian-allied missile bases started showing up near its borders, say in Canada and/or Mexico? Ukraine holds a special strategic place. Not only could (and would) NATO place more missile bases next to a big chunk of Russia's border, but this is also where the Eurasian Steppe crosses into Russia. This is a vast, open plain where an enemy, like NATO, can line up column after column after column of its tanks and troops and roll into Russia. From the Russian perspective this is unacceptable, they can't let that happen.

What Lexx said above. There is a reason why all so called "Eastern bloc" and Baltics rushed to bang at NATO's door begging to be let in the minute after sovietistan imploded. Big, psychotic, cruel, dangerous reason. Starts with R.

[Keyrock]

14 minutes ago, Lexx said:

That's some deja vu. i'll just repeat what I wrote 2 years ago: If russia wouldn't be such a huge **** to all its neighbors, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to join NATO.

Oh I agree, I get why many former Eastern Bloc nations wanted to join NATO. But at the same time I can see the Russian perspective and why Ukraine is a red line for Putin. Again, this was no secret, this was known by NATO, they knew damn well that this would trigger a war. Putin made pleas before he invaded trying to prevent this from happening. His demands were a written agreement that Ukraine would never join NATO and the removal of missile bases from his borders, namely in Poland. I always try to see things from both sides (or all sides if there's more than 2). I can see why NATO rejected this, but I can also see it as a reasonable demand from Russia's point of view.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Keyrock

[HoonDing]

The Baltics are next on the list.

[Lexx]

You are ignoring that they found huge oil/gas fields and whatnot in eastern Ukraine. Russia needed to act and not allow western companies to get their hands on those resources. Why should we buy from russia if we could just buy from ukraine with a much shorter delivery pipeline? War was pretty much inevitable the moment russia realized they couldn't turn ukraine into a puppet state via politics.

Clearly NATO was no threat to them, since right now they pulled almost all their soldiers from their northern borders. Why do this if NATO is so scary?

Edited October 7, 2023 by Lexx

[kanisatha]

22 hours ago, Sarex said:

Until it's your turn to die.

Yes. I die when my time comes up. You don't have a point here with whatever it is you're trying to imply.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Keyrock said:

First off, let's start with any "expert" that say this was an unprovoked attack by a madman is either ignorant or lying, my money is on lying. This was absolutely provoked by NATO, and knowingly. I'm not absolving Russia of responsibility, I think this invasion is horrible, but from the Russian point of view it's necessary. Russia bad and NATO bad are not mutually exclusive, they can both be true, and in this case they are. Russia is bad for invading a sovereign nation and NATO is bad for knowingly pushing them into it. NATO has been pushing toward and encircling Russia for years, decades, and putting missile bases near its border. How do you think the US would react if Russian-allied missile bases started showing up near its borders, say in Canada and/or Mexico? Ukraine holds a special strategic place. Not only could (and would) NATO place more missile bases next to a big chunk of Russia's border, but this is also where the Eurasian Steppe crosses into Russia. This is a vast, open plain where an enemy, like NATO, can line up column after column after column of its tanks and troops and roll into Russia. From the Russian perspective this is unacceptable, they can't let that happen.

Thanks for responding but just to continue my understanding of your views

 So you do believe that the invasion was necessary because the security of Russia  was threatened because of NATO and how Ukraine wanted to join NATO. 

But where do you get your information from that NATO wanted to attack Russia? Its fundamental to your view because if NATO did want to attack Russia then I would agree with you. The Cold War ended over 30 years ago and I have never heard of a single statement from NATO where it wants to attack Russia?

If you dont mind finding that link where NATO states that it wants to or intends to do that it would be very helpful

And why this is very relevant is what difference would it make to the security of Russia  if Ukraine joins NATO but NATO had no intention of ever attacking Russia? But of course if NATO has said it wants to attack Russia then it matters what countries join NATO 

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by BruceVC