Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

Kaka Tim said:
Well putins words and actions are pretty good indicator of what he wants - hes obsessed about restoring his version of Russia - which means assimilating nations like urkraine and others back into the fold. The military strategy is there for all to see - they were clearly unprepared for any sort of serious resistance and are now in serious trouble.
Unlike the US/uk and Iraq - I doubt anyone outside Putin's echo chamber thought invading Ukraine would be a good idea - whereas the the Iraq war was fiercely argued for by both the US and Uk governments and their media cheerleaders (a pre war propaganda campaign notably absent from Russia's build up to invasion) . And - militarily - they were correct in that Saddam's forces would crumble very quickly. What they got disastrously wrong was their belief that they could easily install a stable pro western regime and that the invaders would be welcomed as liberators (and that everyone would forget about the WMD nonsense).
I dont remember bush or Blair making long paranoid rants threatening nuclear Armageddon and "purifying" the country of traitors in pursuit of national glory.
Click to expand...

You see this is where this rhetoric falls apart for me. If Putin had shock and awed somewhere on the other side of the world who posed no direct threat to Russia would this mean he was sane? That he was acting like a normal state? It's almost as if people are using the fact he didn't immediately unleash a firestorm on Kiev as evidence of his delusion, or insanity. And is reminding the West he's got a nuclear arsenal aimed at them any more paranoid than the fact the West has a nuclear arsenal aimed at him? Is that where the line is between meglamaniacal delusional insanity and a normal nuclear state lies, simply pointing out what is otherwise fairly fucking implicit - if you fuck with us we will destroy you. How do you think Bush and Blair would have reacted if the Kremlin had started making noises about a no fly zone over Baghdad in 2003, or started flooding Iragi forces with weapons?

And I'm not saying this to defend him in any way. I dearly hope he fails in whatever his aspirations are. But there seems to be a lot of assumptions being made about his state of mind and motivations which are not really backed by any hard evidence. I don't think that helps much in assessing what's actually going on. At the very least it is likely to lead to him being under-estimated, because I haven't seen any evidence so far that his tactics are irrational or delusional to the point it might cost him this war. Whilst there will have doubtless been mistakes, he's gaining ground without even risking his air force, something likely unthinkable to generals in the West. That doesn't look like someone rattled or panicking or delusional to me. He's not throwing the kitchen sink at this by a long long way and let's hope to fuck he doesn't.
 
not-bono-ever said:
probs not relevant, but is tank warfare finished ? the vids that are streaming across SM of tanks going up are horrendous. Cannot imagine wanting to be in such a lump with the weaponry being used against them. awful
Click to expand...

Nah, tank warfare isn't finished - tanks within a Combined Arms operation (artillery, air, infantry and tanks) are hugely effective - it's just that tanks on their own, just like infantry on their own, are hugely vunerable, and not particularly effective.

What we've been seeing, which is attacks by one or the others, but rarely all four at the same time, suggests that the Russian Army simply hasn't been exercising properly, and therefore can't do what are quite complex combined arms attacks.

Much easier to get an MLRS regiment to vapourise a grid square, and a few miles away have a Tank regiment roar across the steppe at 50kph, and a few miles away from that have infantry dismount from their APC's and do a live fire attack on a trench system.
 
I don't think what you're doing there Gramsci is very fair, asking why can't the West make aid conditional on Nazi battalions being disbanded and then accusing people of justifying Fascism.

Having said that, I don't think it makes much sense to call incorporating the Azov battalion into the state 'pragmatism'. And it certainly isn't going to make them somehow easier to control - think we all know you can't control fash by incorporating them into the state.

Actually Raheem did answer the question about Azov:

Raheem said:
Mainly because it played a prominent role in the Donbass conflict.
Click to expand...

I'd add also that the ultra-nationalists, Svoboda, Right Sektor and Azov battalion played a fairly important part in the Euromaiden and they are part of the new Ukrainian state, it wouldn't exist without them and might not yet be able to exist independently of them. Ironically, Zelensky's election was a step away from that...
 
smokedout said:
You see this is where this rhetoric falls apart for me. If Putin had shock and awed somewhere on the other side of the world who posed no direct threat to Russia would this mean he was sane? That he was acting like a normal state? It's almost as if people are using the fact he didn't immediately unleash a firestorm on Kiev as evidence of his delusion, or insanity. And is reminding the West he's got a nuclear arsenal aimed at them any more paranoid than the fact the West has a nuclear arsenal aimed at him? Is that where the line is between meglamaniacal delusional insanity and a normal nuclear state lies, simply pointing out what is otherwise fairly fucking implicit - if you fuck with us we will destroy you. How do you think Bush and Blair would have reacted if the Kremlin had started making noises about a no fly zone over Baghdad in 2003, or started flooding Iragi forces with weapons?

And I'm not saying this to defend him in any way. I dearly hope he fails in whatever his aspirations are. But there seems to be a lot of assumptions being made about his state of mind and motivations which are not really backed by any hard evidence. I don't think that helps much in assessing what's actually going on. At the very least it is likely to lead to him being under-estimated, because I haven't seen any evidence so far that his tactics are irrational or delusional to the point it might cost him this war. Whilst there will have doubtless been mistakes, he's gaining ground without even risking his air force, something likely unthinkable to generals in the West. That doesn't look like someone rattled or panicking or delusional to me. He's not throwing the kitchen sink at this by a long long way and let's hope to fuck he doesn't.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the very thoughtful posts. Helping me to think through some of this stuff.
 
kebabking said:
The opposite - there is nuance: Ukraine is a state/society with some imperfections, it is by no stretch perfect, and the 'long grass' it's applications to both the EU and NATO in are by no means entirely down to its territorial dispute with Russia.

Russia however is a whole other barrel of fish.

It's the difference between a medium grey and an almost coal mine black.

It's only the headbangers who can't cope with the nuance and the shades of grey - as demonstrated more widely by the endless splits, denouncements and feuds within the left itself - so obsessed with ideological purity that they can no longer differenciate between greys and darker greys, because, to them, all that is outside their groupsicle is jack-booted fascism, and indistinguishable from each other.

Everyone else can cope with differing greys, and sub-optimal, but workable, solutions - it's only the obsessives and the cranks who can't...
Click to expand...

So what is the future for Ukraine? What kind of society is going to emerge if Ukraine "wins"?

As I've posted before if I was in Ukraine I'd be opposing Putins invasion.

Its not a great choice. Look at recent Ukrainian history on Western loans for example. Economic reforms that have been at expense of the ordinary Ukrainian imposed on Ukraine to qualify for loans.

The Ukrainian government is now trying to bring in law curtailing workers rigthts. Which some in Ukraine see as possible move to permanent liberalisation of the workforce.

That's setting aside the Ukrainian Oligarchs. There effect on the economy has been to enrich themselves at expense of Ukrainian citizens.

Despite protests over the years they still remain. And are likely to if Putin withdraws the army.

The one positive thing the "West" could do is cancel Ukrainian state debt. It was crippling before the invasion. Apart from a llttle re structuring of debt that's not going to happen. It would be nice to be proved wrong.

The "headbangers" are those, as I've just seen example here, who pour abuse on a someone for making a few comments. I've had similar offline to point where I avoid talking about the issue. It is getting to point where your either for it hundred percent and if raise doubts then your a Putin supporter. Or as good as one.
 
Last edited:
smokedout said:
he's gaining ground without even risking his air force
Click to expand...
I don't think this is wholly true, and that exposes holes in the rest of your argument.

All the military briefings every day are saying that he isn't gaining ground in any meaningful way and that the majority of his forces are essentially stalled.

And it's not a case of not having to risk his air force, he's not doing it because they keep getting shot down over Ukrainian air space or because he simply doesn't have the might in the air that we thought he did, through lack of combat readiness and training.
 
Supine said:
You’re probably sitting comfortably at home posting about this. Ukrainians are currently fighting for their lives and country. Do you really think they have time to check each other’s credentials? Or have the luxury of selecting who can apply to fight with them?
Click to expand...
I don't think you'd need a complex system of background checks to weed out the Nazis swanning around with fuck-off great swastika flags.
 
strung out said:
I don't think this is wholly true, and that exposes holes in the rest of your argument.

All the military briefings every day are saying that he isn't gaining ground in any meaningful way and that the majority of his forces are essentially stalled.

And it's not a case of not having to risk his air force, he's not doing it because they keep getting shot down over Ukrainian air space or because he simply doesn't have the might in the air that we thought he did, through lack of combat readiness and training.
Click to expand...

Attacks from the air are doing huge damage, but via cruise missiles, over a thousand fired so far, one took out a barracks today with rumours of 200 dead. Like the west, they like to avoid putting pilots in harms way so modern guided missiles provide the same impact. Even if Ukraine physically drives the Russian army back out of the country, these missiles and long-range artillery can still fly over the border or in from the sea mostly unimpeded - it’s why a military victory isn’t possible, and an end can only come via negotiation or regime change.
 
Dogsauce said:
Attacks from the air are doing huge damage, but via cruise missiles, over a thousand fired so far, one took out a barracks today with rumours of 200 dead. Like the west, they like to avoid putting pilots in harms way so modern guided missiles provide the same impact. Even if Ukraine physically drives the Russian army back out of the country, these missiles and long-range artillery can still fly over the border or in from the sea mostly unimpeded - it’s why a military victory isn’t possible, and an end can only come via negotiation or regime change.
Click to expand...
I don't really disagree with that, but supplies of cruise missiles and artillery ammunition aren't limitless, and missiles particularly are still susceptible to being shot down by air defences.

Appreciate that a huge amount of damage can still be done from outside Ukraine's borders, but Putin's negotiating position is significantly weakened by not actually having the military force in the country, or holding the territory he needs to claim significant successes back home.

My take is still that there will be some kind of negotiated peace with very limited territorial gains for Putin. Whether that comes in weeks or months remains to be seen, and yes, Ukraine will suffer the longer that goes on.
 
smokedout said:
You see this is where this rhetoric falls apart for me. If Putin had shock and awed somewhere on the other side of the world who posed no direct threat to Russia would this mean he was sane? That he was acting like a normal state? It's almost as if people are using the fact he didn't immediately unleash a firestorm on Kiev as evidence of his delusion, or insanity. And is reminding the West he's got a nuclear arsenal aimed at them any more paranoid than the fact the West has a nuclear arsenal aimed at him? Is that where the line is between meglamaniacal delusional insanity and a normal nuclear state lies, simply pointing out what is otherwise fairly fucking implicit - if you fuck with us we will destroy you. How do you think Bush and Blair would have reacted if the Kremlin had started making noises about a no fly zone over Baghdad in 2003, or started flooding Iragi forces with weapons?

And I'm not saying this to defend him in any way. I dearly hope he fails in whatever his aspirations are. But there seems to be a lot of assumptions being made about his state of mind and motivations which are not really backed by any hard evidence. I don't think that helps much in assessing what's actually going on. At the very least it is likely to lead to him being under-estimated, because I haven't seen any evidence so far that his tactics are irrational or delusional to the point it might cost him this war. Whilst there will have doubtless been mistakes, he's gaining ground without even risking his air force, something likely unthinkable to generals in the West. That doesn't look like someone rattled or panicking or delusional to me. He's not throwing the kitchen sink at this by a long long way and let's hope to fuck he doesn't.
Click to expand...

I usually find your posts insightful, but I don't think the Bush/Blair comparisons work, it just takes my mind to 'Bush and Blair were arseholes for that, and their domestic politics, and so's Putin for this and his domestic politics🤷' and I don't think that's what you're getting at?

I suppose Bush/Blair were less delusional because the defeat of Iraq was quicker and with less cost to USUK than appears to be the case for Putin/Russia in Ukraine, although the insurgency and rise of isis counts against that.

The Iraqi regime of the time was demonstrably worse than modern Ukraine's too, although I didn't, and still don't, think that justified that invasion
 
Almor said:
I usually find your posts insightful, but I don't think the Bush/Blair comparisons work, it just takes my mind to 'Bush and Blair were arseholes for that, and their domestic politics, and so's Putin for this and his domestic politics🤷' and I don't think that's what you're getting at?

I suppose Bush/Blair were less delusional because the defeat of Iraq was quicker and with less cost to USUK than appears to be the case for Putin/Russia in Ukraine, although the insurgency and rise of isis counts against that.

The Iraqi regime of the time was demonstrably worse than modern Ukraine's too, although I didn't, and still don't, think that justified that invasion
Click to expand...
There was also a much bigger practical reason for the invasion (oil) then this one and they put together an international collation to back them, and faced no significant backlash from other countries. None of which makes their actions any less appalling.
 
strung out said:
I don't really disagree with that, but supplies of cruise missiles and artillery ammunition aren't limitless, and missiles particularly are still susceptible to being shot down by air defences.

Appreciate that a huge amount of damage can still be done from outside Ukraine's borders, but Putin's negotiating position is significantly weakened by not actually having the military force in the country, or holding the territory he needs to claim significant successes back home.

My take is still that there will be some kind of negotiated peace with very limited territorial gains for Putin. Whether that comes in weeks or months remains to be seen, and yes, Ukraine will suffer the longer that goes on.
Click to expand...
The longer this goes the less demanding the Russians can be. We see demands softening already. Putin runs the risk of being depleted on the field to the point it encourages Ukrainians to take back lost ground.
 
Gramsci said:
Now your saying letting fascists join the military is OK because they can be talked out of there obnoxious views once in the military. Interesting view of how to deal with far rigtht. Let them join up be trained to use weapons then ask them to be a bit more tolerant. So what happens if they don't? How in practise will this be done?
Click to expand...
Happens all the time. "Better to have them inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in" is the general philosophy, I believe.
 
Gramsci said:
What I object to on this thread is this view.

Its why Ive avoided posting here.

After a while this is what you get.

I think As I'm in a country supplying weapons I should be entitled to a view of gaurenting who they go to. Its Imo totally legitimate to have a view.
Click to expand...
And if you don't like something about the people we're supplying weapons to, what then? Just stop the supply?
 
kebabking said:
It's only the headbangers who can't cope with the nuance and the shades of grey - as demonstrated more widely by the endless splits, denouncements and feuds within the left itself - so obsessed with ideological purity that they can no longer differenciate between greys and darker greys, because, to them, all that is outside their groupsicle is jack-booted fascism, and indistinguishable from each other.

Everyone else can cope with differing greys, and sub-optimal, but workable, solutions - it's only the obsessives and the cranks who can't...
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s true. The good versus evil simple story is something that our whole culture is deeply steeped in, it's not just a few lefties who are doing it, and everyone is at it right now, from Putin though to the Defenders of Freedom And Democracy and Justice etc. Look at that response Gramsci got, about how he probably loves it when maternity wards are blown up.
It's totally understandable in a time like this but still it's dangerous, the righteous zeal of it all, leads to people on the internet cheering at the idea of Russians not being able to feed themselves because of sanctions etc.
People going on about the Azov whilst the war is happening are an irritant because it seems pointless at the moment and it also plays perfectly into Russian propaganda. Some of them have gone the whole hog and are using the nazis as a way to try to stick to their established idea that the baddies are always whichever side America is on, but 'headbangers' are everywhere right now, not just on the cranky left side.
 
bimble said:
I don’t think that’s true. The good versus evil simple story is something that our whole culture is deeply steeped in, it's not just a few lefties who are doing it, and everyone is at it right now, from Putin though to the Defenders of Freedom And Democracy and Justice etc. Look at that response Gramsci got, about how he probably loves it when maternity wards are blown up.
It's totally understandable in a time like this but still it's dangerous, the righteous zeal of it all, leads to people on the internet cheering at the idea of Russians not being able to feed themselves because of sanctions etc.
People going on about the Azov whilst the war is happening are an irritant because it seems pointless at the moment and it also plays perfectly into Russian propaganda. Some of them have gone the whole hog and using the nazis as a way to try to stick to their established idea that the baddies are always whichever side America is on, but 'headbangers' are everywhere right now, not just on the cranky left side.
Click to expand...
I do agree that headbanging isn't remotely exclusive to the left - but I imagine that he was talking about what we see here, where there are very few right-wing types, headbangers or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

platinumsage
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, Feb 2022 - tangentially related crap
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
977
Views
52K
Artaxerxes
Artaxerxes
tim
The 2023 Russian Coup.
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
68K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
platinumsage
Ukraine invasion memes and viral content
70 71 72 73 74
Replies
2K
Views
122K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
Back
Top Bottom