RT used to be excellent for non-Russia related news. — Manuel

That was the irony. Yes, to report on the US they were able to act like investigative journalists. But anything concerning Russia or it's allies is a different matter. And of course, when the Kremlin wants to push something, everything close to journalism goes out the window and it's Goebbels-time. Sad, but they could be OK journalists, if they want.

No nukes will be used in Ukraine. It's just too close to Russia, the fall put would be spread all over western Russia. Assuming the missiles themselves don't crash in Russian territory by mistake, as happened recently. — Olivier5

I sincerely hope so. There is a small possibility that Putin will follow the "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine especially now when directly from the Stalinist playbook, the sham referendums have been done with North Korean success on the occupied territories. Especially if not otherwise the Ukrainian counter-offensive cannot be stopped.

A tactical nuke wouldn't do much in the battlefield: Ukrainian battlegroups simply aren't packed together that a tactical nuke would do much. It would just create huge panic and likely condemnation to Russia even from it's allies. Naturally the panic, especially in the West, could do wonders. People would genuinely think that nuclear annihilation is the next logical step and will happen the next day. Arguments for immediate cease-fire would be heard a lot.

Likely in that case, if tactical nukes would be used against Ukraine, suddenly the Ukrainian defence forces would start to inflict unseen damage to the Russian forces. The Russian Black Sea fleet would have many ships sunk in rapid secession, Ukraine suddenly would leash this awesome barrage of cruise missiles etc. I think this is the issue that US tries to communicate to Russia. Hopefully they are credible in their threat. (And it's obvious that this isn't said publicly as that would make it just worse)

I do think that neither side wants all out WW3. Putin's game would literally start to be Russian roulette for him.

The fact is that it seems now as things are going good for Ukraine, some Western countries are starting to limit the arms shipments to Ukraine. Germany hasn't been keen to send Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine and what the Ukrainians are short of is modern Western air defence systems.

Ukraine’s relations with Germany have soured this week, with Kyiv asking why Berlin reneged on its promise to provide heavy weaponry.

Tensions over Germany’s provision of Leopard tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine — or lack thereof — came to a head this week when Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, publicly asked why Berlin was backtracking on a pledge made to send these weapons to Ukraine.

“Disappointing signals from Germany while Ukraine needs Leopards and Marders now — to liberate people and save them from genocide,” Kuleba said on Twitter, adding that there was “not a single rational argument on why these weapons can not be supplied, only abstract fears and excuses.”

See here

More precisely, Putin has apparently lost Tokaïev, Kazakhstan strong man. — Olivier5

I think that many leaders are starting to notice that Putin's fragile position.

That some ex-Soviet states are starting to have border troubles shows also that they have noticed that Russia is weak, incapable to intervene. Let's remember that Armenia and Azerbaijan didn't even wait for the Soviet Union to collapse before they started their war with each other.

And Armenia and Azerbaijan are again on the edge:

on 12 September (2022), a series of clashes along the countries’ border resulted in dozens of casualties on both sides, giving rise to fears large-scale hostilities could resume. Despite a Russian-brokered ceasefire in November 2020, violence continued to bubble up periodically. But the latest incidents are of a different degree, and took place far from the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which has long been at the heart of the dispute between the two states.

And then there are other border clashes:

(Sep 17th 2022) Kyrgyzstan reported “intense battles” with Central Asian neighbor Tajikistan on Friday and said 24 people had been killed in the latest outbreak of violence to hit the former Soviet Union.

Both of the small impoverished landlocked nations have accused each other of restarting fighting in a disputed area, despite a ceasefire deal.

When the cats away, the mice come out to play?

Gasprom just issued an ultimatum to Ukraine's gas operator Naftogas. The likely outcome of this is that unless Ukraine consents to deliver Russian gas to Europe at no charge, this pipeline will be cut off as well, reducing the current amount of Russian gas flow to Europe by half. — SophistiCat

This is the interesting fact: gas to Europe has flowed through Ukraine by the Brotherhood / Soyuz pipelines. Yeah, all out conventional war going on...but don't that let hinder gas trade.

I think here Putin made an error by cutting the gas (or making threats to cut it) far too earlier in the summer. Yes, it's a natural response to counter with something when the West makes all kinds of embargoes against you. But now West Europe has had time to replenish it's stocks, to look for new resources and above all, get it's people informed that the winter might be filled with electricity rationing and even blackouts. Without doing so, without responding in any way until now, I do assume that Western politicians and especially Germany could have been gotten caught with their pants down.

Germany's Olaf Scholz obtaining a LNG deal with the UAE few days ago.(I bet he's as relieved as he looks in this picture):


Imagine if the question where to get gas now, when Russia is out, would have been asked only so late and people in Berlin would start looking at the World map today?

Keir Starmer is probably smart enough not to use the B-word against Truss's heavies, all he needs to do is keep quiet and pick up the next election.. — Tim3003

I think the UK should get passed Brexit finally and tackle the present problems. It has been a nice thread, but Brexit is so Elizabethan. You already have some young Britons that have never lived under Elizabeth II's reign.

There can easily come a new "winter of discontent" with the inflation and all the problems. Then conservatives MPs have gotten so rowdy that they can think of change the prime minister if they don't like the person, which tells about their hubris.

I think labor can win the next elections. Assuming if Labour politicians don't do something insanely stupid, go hyper-woke, attack their traditional base and go ideologically full Marxist. If they really try, they can push their supporters to vote some other party. Yet, I think Sir Keir Starmer doesn't look like to declare himself non-binary and veer the Labor party even more to the left than Jeremy Corbyn.

But you know better, I'm just a foreigner...

Kazakhstan will guarantee the safety of Russians fleeing their country as Russia moves to conscript hundreds of thousands of army reserves to fight in Ukraine, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has said. — Olivier5

And this is very interesting.

Has Russia lost Kazakhstan?

Seems that it was an explosion that caused the gasleaks in the Nordstream gas pipeline:

Swedish geological stations notice an explosion: See here (in Swedish)

Reuters picked on it:

STOCKHOLM, Sept 27 (Reuters) - A Swedish seismologist said on Tuesday he was certain the seismic activity detected at the site of the Nord Stream pipeline gas leaks in the Baltic Sea was caused by explosions and not earthquakes nor landslides.

Russia has declared it cannot repair the leaks because of the sanctions. So a bit of hybrid warfare?

Estimates seem to be very variable as to how many Russians are leaving. Has anyone done any sums yet? — unenlightened

First of all, one should look at net flows. People come also back to Russia.

Here's of statistics of Russian citizens entering Finland (yellow) and leaving (white):

As for Finland (and the EU) Russians need visas, the volumes of people to coming to Finland is small. Yet it's the only Western border open for them (perhaps Norway might be up North). Kazakhstan doesn't have visa requirements and there is a large ethnic Russian population in the country.

From the Border Guards site of the following days of Russian citizens (link here:

Date___Incoming_Outgoing___Net inflow
26.9.___ 7 743_ 3 662_ 4081
25.9.___ 8 314_ 5 068_ 3246
24.9.___ 8 582_ 4 199 _ 4383
23.9.___ 7 667_ 3 545_ 4122

Hence several thousand coming in every day to Finland. And a lot of new cars. So these aren't poor people leaving Russia, but basically people the Russian economy would need. To put this into perspective, last year in Finland there were about 70 000 people that came from the former Soviet states, majority naturally Russians. Of course many go onwards to other Western countries.

Here's the stats by Frontex:


Georgia and Kazakhstan likely have far more. The stats may have difficulties to keep up.

The issue under discussion was how Ukraine would be victorious, or Russia not-victorious, through military means, such as the collapse of the Russian state. — boethius

Uh, by continuing to do what it has done now. :smirk:

An argument with zero supporting evidence except anecdotal that some Russians aren't happy — boethius

Yes, we have heard your argument that everything is just anecdotal. The quarter million leaving Russia are just anecdotal also. :snicker:

For, the US' analysis was that this would be Russia's "Afghanistan" and so weaken Russia in conventional military terms, which is certainly true in terms of using up Soviet stockpiles. — boethius

Actually the war has lweakened Russia far more than the war in Afghanistan did the Soviet Union. That Russia is using Soviet stockpiles is already quite telling. Meaning that the modern stock has already gone or very limited.

(T-62 tanks, which were first introduced in 1961 to the Soviet arsenal. Production stopped in 1975.)

My gut feeling is pretty optimistic this has an effect on the war effort in Ukraine but it's just a vague sense and too many other variables swirling about to trust it. — Benkei

We can just look at Venezuela, Belarus, Iran and Russia itself and notice that widespread dissatisfaction and protests don't topple totalitarian regimes. It's only in functioning democracies were large scale protests can make the administrations to resign.

But I agree, it's at least positive what is happening in Russia.

... the general Russian population isn't particularly keen on the outward aggressions nor feels particularly threatened by other countries. — jorndoe

I can totally believe that. But that's the official line: that foreign countries (the US) are out to get Russia. Many of the Russians that I've met have totally sound and realistic views about the state of their nation. If the US is polarized with democrats and Trump fans, Russia is even more divided with those that believe in Putin and those who are against the regime.

Yet as there isn't a democracy, just how much there is opposition is hard to know. Yet a quarter of a million people leaving the country does tell something.

One of the primary services of religion to the State is to help the State wage war. — Art48

And this is common with other religions too. The link even far more obvious in Islam.

P.S. My thanks to the Russian Orthodox Church for providing more evidence for my views. — Art48

Thank the KGB for patriarch Kirill.

For example, postmodernism and its emphasis on deconstruction was about looking at ideologies but it could also be seen as a form of ideology in its attempts to break down those of past eras. — Jack Cummins

I think that this has gained more popularity nowdays: to break down past eras thinking.

The basic problem I guess with every "post" -ism is that it genuinely needs extremely well understanding of what is criticized, yet if the study (as usual) is just the conclusions, then the whole idea of just what is passed is blurred to some stereotypical simplification. The past thinking to be criticized isn't at all understood. And this breaks the link to the previous scientific understanding.

What would be concerning if no Russian would want (secretly?) regime change. Yet many opt to leave... perhaps the ghost of Stalin is too frightening.

Putin had a somewhat good run for Russia. Until 2014, and especially from February 24th this year it really been a train wreck.

Seems unlikely that something like this could take place in Putin's Russia: — jorndoe

Except you can find photos like that from years ago already. This is from 2007 and then Putin's elections:


Perhaps Russia now experiences something that the US experienced in 2020 after the death of George Floyd?

Please cite the hypothesis if it's been made. — boethius

That the Russian invasion of Ukraine is only Western propaganda? Sure.

(9th February, 2022) Western media and governments have expressed alarm over a suspected buildup of Russian military forces close to its over-1200-mile border with Ukraine. There are reportedly almost 100,000 troops in that vicinity, causing President Joe Biden to warn that this is “the most consequential thing that’s happened in the world in terms of war and peace since World War II.”

Yet this is far from the first media panic over a supposedly imminent Russian invasion. In fact, warning of a hot war in Europe is a near yearly occurrence at this point.

_ _ _

Thus, many readers will be forgiven for thinking it is Groundhog Day again. Yet there is something different about this time: coverage over the conflict has been enormous and has come to dominate the news cycle for weeks now, in a way it simply did not previously. The possibility of war has scared Americans and provoked calls for a far higher military budget and a redesign of American foreign policy to counter this supposed threat.

Russia, for its part, has repeatedly rejected all allegations that it plans to attack Ukraine, describing them as “fiction.” “Talks about the coming war are provocative by themselves. [The U.S.] seems to be calling for this, wanting and waiting for [war] to happen, as if you want to make your speculations come true,” said Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia.

(See here)

Today, eight years after the start of the conflict, Russia is amassing a large number of troops along the border. Has it changed its approach? That is unlikely. Despite Western predictions of an imminent invasion, it is questionable that the intended target of the Russian military mobilisation is Ukraine.

(See No, Russia will not invade Ukraine)

On the contrary, the events in Russia compared to Ukraine are very insightful. So let's get back to the OP:

But when a country imposes conscription on its citizens, it begs the question, for whose interests is the country acting? Is the country mobilizing to save its citizens, or is it mobilizing to save the existing power structure? — _db

Here the actions of the citizens themselves tell a lot how they view this.

Yes, when Ukraine mobilized it forces and prevented every military aged man from leaving, there were also examples of (male) citizens wanting to leave the country. But usually these were foreigners, who for example had gotten the citizenship to work in Ukraine and didn't have family in Ukraine. Yet if there were some instances of this in the case of Ukraine, it was nothing like now in Russia where it's estimated that quarter of a million people have fled Russia since February 24th. Even my country is getting thousands of military age men here daily trying to avoid the mobilization.

In Georgia (where Russian's apparently don't need a visa), it's even more obvious.


Far more dangerous it is if the mobilization is focus on minorities and poor and isn't universal. The rich getting off by corruption and the poor going to the front is something that isn't good for social cohesion. This creates a lot of social tensions. In riots in Dagestan, one of the poorest parts of Russia, are likely caused by this.



Hence it's actually the people and the conscripts themselves who answer @_db's question in the OP. If they feel that the mobilization is done to protect them, then there's no problem. If on the other hand the mobilization is to save the elite, the power structure, then the mobilization is on shaky grounds.

So Russia's great and wise leader, Vladimir Putin, has called for partial mobilisation. Isaac is going to tell us how criminal such a decision was, any moment now. — Olivier5

Unlike your good self, I don't feel the need to use discussion forums just to tell the world how I feel about things. — Isaac

:rofl:

Oh yes, when it was Ukraine and it's conscription/mobilization, @Isaac had much to say. Yet when it's Russian leaders not keeping their promises and mobilizing their reservists, nope, he hasn't got anything to say. Especially when some of those opposing the mobilization are protesting the mobilization or fleeing the country. Or someone even shooting the leader of the local draft committee in siberia. All events I would presume would be something notable to this discussion. Especially if the war isn't popular, how much can the government threaten the conscripts even in theory.

Nah. Good ol' tankie won't do that!






Oh @Isaac, you are so funny.

See if the Russians lose for as of yet unexplained reasons — boethius

Right on, boethius. No one has ever convincingly explained or made any sound hypothesis that this war might not be a victory for Russia. Because it's all just Western propaganda. Like the talk that Russia would invade Ukraine, in the first place.

The glorious Russian army will be victorious!!! Why can't the Ukrainians understand this and surrender?

As I've said, this war looks like to be going something like the Russo-Japanese war. The Russian Tzardom didn't fall because of the Russo-Japanese war, as you too might know from history. But the poor war did have some consequences.

Otherwise, the Russian army and reserves are far larger and now on the defensive and have all the benefits Ukrainians had defending Kiev, and the Russian army can disable the entire Ukrainian grid at will, and also has nuclear weapons that it can deploy at any moment. — boethius

Let's see then how triumphant the victorious Russian forces are then, shall we?

Thank you for that article. :up: Hadn't heard that term tankie before.

From the article:

It’s American exceptionalism turned on its head — an inability to imagine that people in other countries have the agency to form their own social movements and revolutions without help from the U.S. This worldview leads them to de-legitimize and dismiss protesters in Hong Kong, Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, Lebanon and Venezuela as illegitimate, and to deny horrific human rights abuses in a score of countries across the globe from Russia to Bolivia.

This sounds so familiar to me. The criticism against the US I can understand, but then being an apologist to totalitarian regimes is at first confusing. Yet of course, it should not be. Especially if someone tries to make a living out of journalism or commentary, then you have to pick a side. It's not only about the hand that feeds you (as depicted well in that article), it's also the polarized readers that demand that. And if you become a persona non grata to one audience, why would you write anything that for them and then inflame also the other side. Those trying to stay out of the ideological camps have simply to tread carefully, I guess.

Firing into the air is pretty normal in some cultures. Certainly would be a "huge deal" in the West, but a good indication that it's not a big deal in Dagestan is that no one in the crowd seems at all alarmed. — boethius

Of course. A daily normal occurence in Dagestan. :blush:

There is zero reason to believe small protests are about to take down the entire Russian state. — boethius

Mere inconvenience. Putin Strong!!!

It seems strange to try and mobilize a population that has been effectively demobilized for decades, ie told not to get involved in politics. — Olivier5

According to our Putinists, No Problem! Puny protests and tiny minorities fleeing Russia won't have any effect on the regime. Anytime, in any way. It's just a hoax by the Western media that this would any kind of problem to the strong Putin regime. :razz:

Or that what just some months ago were said:

(Thursday, June 16th 2022) Russian President’s Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, said that Vladimir Putin will not announce a general mobilisation in Russia at the St.Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday. - This is the third time Russian officials are denying a general mobilisation will happen. Initially, rumours about it appeared in early March, and then many Western analysts expected its announcement on 9 May.

(See here)

Just like they denied having any ideas of making a large scale attack on Ukraine prior to February this year. (Which btw was believed by the same people here)

There's no need for the scares quotes, they are literally anecdotal videos. — Isaac

Of course, and this is naturally from an Ukrainian media.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Z9VP6q5osL0

Otherwise the mobilization is going absolutely perfectly. :smirk:

More 'anecdotal' videos...

If Russia was to take over Ukraine (in whichever way), then Putin's whi...err rhetoric about NATO, equally becomes Moldova's, Poland's, Romania's, Hungary's, and Slovakia's neighbor-fears, and by extension, likely most of Europe's, having enjoyed fair stability.
Putin's nuclear rattling doesn't help.
By Putin's "logic" at least, they'd be justified in direct military action to free Ukraine — direct as in planes in Ukrainian airspace, troops on the ground, whatever — not a mere "special operation". — jorndoe

I think it has already happened in February 24th of this year. Russia achieving it's objectives (Novorossiya + regime change in rump Ukraine) isn't the event when other countries change their views. Even if the war would stop in a frozen conflict (basically a loose armstice and talks going nowhere), Russia would be the looming threat. It actually took a long time to come to this, with the resets, and all that hopeful belief that Russia will change.

Putin is all in.

In fact, I think made a good historical comparison just how "all in" Putin has gone and how this could backfire on him (based on what has happened earlier in Russian history with similar actions). And it doesn't look good for him now.

Not only did the Ukrainians win the battle of Kyiv, a huge moral booster, but the success of their counter attack has also kept the moral up in the Ukrainian camp. And then there's the NATO/US support, which by these levels are totally sustainable for the West. The West hasn't thrown in everything, perhaps the Javelin missiles have to be produced about 1,5 years to regain the levels of missiles that were prior the war. The West isn't bleeding, the defense expenditure isn't excessive. The simple fact is that the West can continue such support it now is giving for a very long time. That the Ukrainians can not only defend, but regain territory and go on the offensive has changed how the Ukrainians are viewed in the West.

After the war in Afghanistan came to it's natural conclusion, in a spectacular catastrophe that was for very long in the works as an impending policy train-wreck, the West likely saw any military engagement as unwinnable, a looming failure. So the up-beat attitude of the Ukrainians actually talking about winning the war surprised them. Now that can become overconfidence, because let's just remember that WW2 was for the Russians a cascade of epic failures until the battle Stalingrad. Russia is those countries can constantly fail and then just continue at it far longer than anybody would anticipate them continuing.

As the saying goes, Russia is never as strong it looks at strength and never so weak as it looks at it's time of weakness.

Very partisan. Not like your "well-respected think tank" CSIS, with their... — Isaac

That btw. got things wrong, as was my main point. But of course you don't notice such 'minutiae'. :roll:

...is presumably a genius move from a well organised war machine? — Isaac

Have I said that? Strawmanning as usual Isaac.

As I just said, the Ukrainian mobilization of 2014 is an example how long it takes to mobilize forces when you don't have a plan or organization to do it. Was Ukraine ready for war in 2014? Absolutely not! It took half a year for Ukraine and in 2014 the voluntary battalions were doing the fighting then. The Ukrainian military seems to have developed from that time, I guess.

Uh huh. Whereas this...

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/07/30/zelensky-militants-convicted-child-rape-torture-military/ — Isaac

And this is the Websites @Isaac uses:

The Grayzone is a far-left news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. The website, initially founded as The Grayzone Project, was affiliated with AlterNet before becoming independent in early 2018. The website's news content is generally considered to be fringe. It is known for misleading reporting and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, in addition to its denial of the Uyghur genocide. The Grayzone has published conspiracy theories about Venezuela, Xinjiang, Syria and other regions, as well as pro-Russian propaganda during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Keep it up for Putin, Isaac!!!

Your point was about training and quality of skills, not motivation. — boethius

If we talk about training, the as I've said multiple of times, this force might be useful in a possible spring offensive for the Russians in 2023. Not in two weeks time. And as I said earlier, a perfect example of this was the Ukrainian mobilization in 2014.

Ukraine has sent fresh conscripts with little to no training into front line combat, but there's no reason to believe Russia will do the same. — boethius

Why you think so? With Wagner group searching jails for volunteers, I think this is very typical how Russians have organized these wars: chaotic and unprepared.

- Russia gets sanctions dropped and Nord Stream 2. — boethius

Really, who would after this trust in the West Putin for one's energy needs?

A. there's no reason to assume they'd be any less quality than much of Ukraine's conscript force — boethius

There is. Ukrainians are defending their country against a hostile invader. The Russians aren't.

If the Russians now called were sent to defend St. Petersburg or Saratov from an foreign invasion force, I think they really could be fighting to get into the busses to the front. Never underestimate the role of the will to fight.

War is messy and chaotic, you're going to find pretty much anecdotal evidence for pretty much anything. — boethius

Yet what isn't anecdotal is:

a) Since coming into office Putin has tried to push away from a conscription army and veer the armed forces into an volunteer force, which hasn't happened.

b) Even the Soviet Union had huge difficulties of mobilization it's reserves, which basically were just nothing else than a list of names in a vault.

c) Russia doesn't have an organization for the mobilization of such quantities of troops and neither have reservists been trained. It would be different if Russia would have done refresher training to reservists after their military service and trained these as units. It hasn't done that.

You cannot dispute these facts. Yes, any video material is anecdotal, but those arguments above aren't. Those forces mobilized now will likely be able to be used in a spring offensive by the Russians in 2023.

If you think the Russian state is on the brink of collapse because of a few protests and a tiny minority of people leaving the country, you are truly living in fantasy. — boethius

A tiny majority? Let's see what that "tiny majority" is like?

In the tech sector alone, an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 professionals left in the first month of the war, with a further 70,000 to 100,000 expected to follow soon thereafter, according to a Russian IT industry trade group.

around 15,000 millionaires are expected to leave Russia this year, according to a June report from London-based citizenship-by-investment firm Henley & Partners, with Dubai ranking as the top location for the super rich.

IT-sector professionals and millionaires. Quite an irrelevant minority there.

Just here in four days over 27 000 Russians have come over the border. Of course, some go back even here you are talking about thousands fleeing the mobilization. And Georgia and Kazakhstan it's far bigger. Finally Finland is tightening the visas to come here.

Even if it was remotely feasible, it would cost hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, perhaps millions, and for zero benefit to the average Ukrainian accomplish, certainly not to attempt and fail. — boethius

Spoken like a true Putin believer. Resistence is futile!!!

And from what I understand from Ukrainian Nazi planning on this issue, the idea is not that Ukrainians themselves would defeat Russia but that NATO would do it for them. — boethius

Wow. Sergei Shoigu couldn't say it better. Ukrainian nazis counting that NATO does the fighting for them.

Incredible, Boethius.

The dangers of conscription are obvious when you are the side that is attacking. Attacking other countries may not be so popular than leaders think.

For Ukraine or any country that is defending itself from outside attack, conscription works quite well.

How do you understand the concept of 'post-truth" itself? — Jack Cummins

It's trendy for every generation to define lying and deception in politics again. Hopefully from a new angle.

I totally agree with this.

I would think the reason is because wars and military operations have been so crucial to his (Putin's) rule, that once confronted by a military endeavor gone bad, he has just ante'd up. Second Chechen war was basically his Presidential campaign, the Russo-Georgian war, even if pretty chaotic for the Russian army, was still a victory. The Crimean occupation went like a dream. The Syrian campaign wasn't a disaster either. Everything looked good until this military adventure.

And I think he likely cannot see what a perilous situation he is creating with this war, which you explained very well. This war seems a lot to me like the Russo-Japanese war.

The whole thing is beginning to look like the war on Vietnam by the Americans. People who were happy not knowing jack about other people were forced to pay attention through personal loss. — Paine

Except this war is bloodier than the Vietnam war was for Americans (for the Vietnamese, it's another issue). The highest death toll for the US was in 1968 with nearly 17 000 killed. Russian losses have pasted that in far less than a year (although believing the official statistics, only 5 000+ have been killed).

This war is also a bigger burden for the Russian economy than the Vietnam war was for the US.

And this war has basically put nearly all Russian ground forces into the fight. During 1969 at the peak the US armed forces had 543 000 troops in Vietnam. Yet even then only 30% of all US troops were deployed into foreign countries, and not all in Vietnam. A quarter million troops were deployed into Europe in 1969. Compared to that, Russia has put it's whole ground forces to fight in Ukraine. It's telling that for the annual exercises in the Far Eastern military district, Russia had withdraw troops from Ukraine to participate in them.

And Putin knows just where he actually needs troops: the National Guard is larger than the ground forces of the Russian army.

If the implosion of Russia follows failure in Ukraine, that's definitely one way to defeat Russia. — boethius

There's a huge effort to do that. By Putin, actually.



The Russo-Japanese war cannot be viewed as a victory for Russia. That war resulted in the 1905 revolution.

The poor performance of the Soviet Union in the Winter War 1939-1940 and it's inability to conquer a very small nation lead Hitler to think that the Soviet Union would be a pushover.

Both wars ended in humiliation for Russia, yet on both occasions the country faced later a World War and survived, even if in WW1 faced a revolution and a long civil war.

The mobilization effort, with having no earlier plans for anything thing like this, no organization to do the mobilization and the training and equipment being no questionable cold-war era materiel, will end up likely being chaotic. Both Meduza and Novaya Gazeta Europe have reported that the actual number would be 1,2 million. And this can create real friction in the Russian society. Already it's been noted that especially minorities and poor regions are used as naturally angry mothers at Moscow and St. Petersburgh streets could be a problem.

Actually from this war there is a perfect example just how difficult it will be and long a mobilization that hasn't been prepared and been rehearsed will take. That's the mobilization that Ukraine had to do in 2014. Basically it took half a year for Ukraine to mobilize the reserves and for a long time it was the voluntary battalions that were used. So basically when you are talking about this mobilization, it will have an effect perhaps on a Russian spring offensive in 2023. How effective it will be is another matter.

Or then that implosion can come from that 'New Army' that is now created.

Obviously Ukraine surrendering and then Putin putting his puppet oligarch friend Medvedchuk as leader of what's left of Ukraine after the territories of Novorossiya would have been annexed by Russia would have meant fewer dead — ssu

Yes. — Isaac

So Ukrainians not deciding to do this, roll over and surrender, would according to you been the best outcome. I think that's enough to know from you and of the contribution you give to this thread.

Ah, the desperate need to strawman, when you cannot prove wrong the other one.

I'm no military expert so cannot forecast much, but it seems to me the Ukrainian side has been cautious and prudent with its operations, not exposing troops more than strictly necessary, being worried of getting trapped if advancing too fast. — Olivier5

I think that the Ukrainians understand that they have to be ready for a long war. After the initial push failed, the Russians have tried to salvage what there is to salvage. But I think they have made a breakthrough in how to fight the Russians. Aerial and US satellite reckon, pinpoint artillery/rocket attacks make are quite successful.

This video tells rather well just why this is so. And why the Russian multiple rocket systems aren't so effective. The video also explains just why Russians have declared so many HIMARS systems being destroyed:


It's interesting to see how much longer the Ukrainian offensive can go.

some of us take seriously our duty to hold our governments to account for their actions, so for us what matters here is the justness of the actions of our governments, and for most of us, that isn't Russia. — Isaac

By basically talking a lot more about everything else than the actual topic of the thread, the war in Ukraine. Because on a thread about Ukraine, the topic ought to be how bad the US and your government is, not Ukraine or Russia. Right on. :snicker:

It would be more credible, if you came up even once with some actions, any action, of your government that would be justified. But as obviously everything your government does is unjust, the West is evil capitalism, it's great to then you go with the line that the Pro-Russian side pushes. Because it's critical about the West! Because the US is far more worse and hence we shouldn't discuss what Russia does in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

Like just days before this offensive started, you clearly obviously believed Putin won't attack because Joe Biden was saying so (and Putin was denying it):

The experts say Russia is preparing for war and I'm sure the billions that the pharmaceuticalarms industry will make is just a coincidence.

Of course, you might find some experts disagreeing, but with none of you being military strategists, you wouldn't want to be 'doing your own research', would you?

Besides, have you not read the news? Those nasty truckers are funded by the Russians, best be on the safe side, lest they fund any more peaceful protestsdomestic terrorists. — Isaac

Februrary 18th already. Typical Russians. Late as usual. Too busy organising Canadian truckers and missed their deadline most likely.

If we're all going to be annihilated in world war three it could at least start on time. I had tickets... — Isaac

The offensive then started on the 24th.

And just to give an example, then your idea what options in the war would be better:

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac

Obviously Ukraine surrendering and then Putin putting his puppet oligarch friend Medvedchuk as leader of what's left of Ukraine after the territories of Novorossiya would have been annexed by Russia would have meant fewer dead (and fewer tanks destroyed). Even less would have been killed if Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine starting from 2014.

But that Option 2 what you hoped for didn't happen. (At least yet and looks to be unlikely)

(Yet Medvedchuk was released to Russia in a prisoner transfer, so I guess Putin can still use him)

I’m not a big fan of boethius’s view, but I have to say, your reaction to his statements of fact is just bizarre. Whether or not the referendum results are legitimate, they will be used by the Russian regime to justify further escalation of the conflict. This seems to be what boethius was saying, and I don’t know why you’d object to it. — Jamal

Yes, the referendums will be used as propaganda. But that doesn't make them a real democratic referendum. And that's my point.

When it's propaganda, then say it's propaganda. It's not a question of whether or not, because it's not. Or do we think just at an instant, in a war zone that actually isn't properly defined a true democratic referendum would / could take place? Would you really think that the referendum result could be that the majority would say "No, let's not join the Russian Federation"? You really think that would happen, @Jamal? Something that only tries to be a democratic vote shouldn't be treated as a democratic vote.

Was it bizarre to call the Russian VDV paratroops what they were? Then Russia was calling them "Crimean volunteer defence forces" and the puzzled Western Media was calling them "little green men"? Can just taking off your flag sign from your crisp new uniform be so puzzling? The same way, can an invader declaring a referendum in the area it has occupied be also so puzzling for us?

Now what? I'm consigned to the looney bin because I disagree with your interpretation? — Isaac

Of course not, Isaac. If you don't get it, you don't. That doesn't make you a looney.

You're the one that contradicted my point that these votes are significant (to the war), saying that's nonsense. — boethius

???

Now your outraged by the idea it doesn't matter if the elections are fraudulent or not. So, seems pretty significant events to you after all. — boethius

A sham referendum is a sham referendum. It's basically propaganda.

The significance in terms of these votes, whatever you think of them, is that it is the step to formal annexation of these territories by Russia, and, again, regardless of whether other countries recognise that or not, it will become Russian territory for Russia. — boethius

Oh boy.

Just stop and think what you are saying @boethius: "it is the step to formal annexation of these territories by Russia, and, again, regardless of whether other countries recognise that or not, it will become Russian territory for Russia."
This is all pure 100% Russian propaganda.

Sovereignty over any territory isn't called by the one who declares it, it is given by other sovereign states. So you saying "regardless of whether other countries recognize that or not" doesn't make sense.