Why are you purposefully misrepresenting I was talking about the Gulf War when I'm referring to Iraq? — Benkei

I'm not misrepresenting you at all. I understood that you were talking about the 2003 invasion. But I was referring to another war.

But the question is what you think about these conflicts. Were they illegal?

The fact is sometimes you can condemn and sometimes justify. That the Soviet Union in a large part destroyed the Third Reich was totally justified. They had been attack. Even if just before they had divided Eastern Europe with Hitler (and attacked my country, btw).

It's useful to keep all this in mind and to condemn every illegal war, including the current aggression of a democracy by a dictatorship in Ukraine. Two wrongs don't make a right. — Olivier5

And those who don't condemn it, but accept issues like the annexation of Crimea by force should be as trolls left out of the discussion.

If people want to discuss the issues that Russia is using as propaganda talking points, then it would be good to understand that they are talking about issues that are used as propaganda. Let's take the case of NATO enlargement, one of the most cherished talking points among Ukrainian neo-nazis and US backed bioweapon labs etc. @dclements posted on another thread a great short video of the issue which does give an informative overview about the subject without falling to Anti-Americanism and hence indirectly promote the propaganda of the aggressor in the Ukrainian conflict.

If you haven't see it,

LOL. This is exactly the double standards that agitates me. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal. — Benkei

But then do you think that the war to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion illegal?

Do you think the United Nations going to war against North Korea after it invaded the South was illegal?

Do you think UK and France declaring war at Germany after it invaded Poland was illegal?

Or you just don't care?

Sorry, but I take the stance that countries can perform actions that they can be condemned about and similarly do something that can be supported.

Not financed by the US. Supported in other ways. — frank

Yes. The Saudis do pay hard cash for the M1 Abrams tanks, for those F-15 strike aircraft and smart bombs.

Donald Trump was happy!

Comes to mind my country's history: Choose you side when on one side there is Stalin and on the other Hitler. The choice doesn't mean morality doesn't exist.

Yet still I don't understand just why you can't say that on this issue I support and on that issue I deeply condemn.

Besides there is a common issue just when I would condemn the actions. When the argument or justification for a war is a hypothetical.

-We have to get into a civil war because the one side are Communists and hence if we let South Vietnam fall, then it will be next all of Southeast Asia.
- We have to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein might get nuclear weapons and then pose a threat.
- We have to invade Afghanistan because it could be otherwise a safe haven for terrorists and a springboard for further attacks.
- We have to invade Yemen because if the Houthis gain power, Iran might get a foothold in the Arabian Peninsula.
- We have to invade Ukraine because NATO might then use it as an attack on Russia.

All of the above are different to a justification: because X did attack Y, we should defend/give support to Y.

And then historically the absolute worst reason to attack: because time is running out, the war has to be fought sooner than later.

- Hence the German Empire thought it would be good to have the war before Russia gets to be too strong, so they were in a hurry.
- Hence the Project for the New American Century neocons wanted to remodel the Middle East before another Super Power would rise (after the Soviet Union), so they were in a hurry.
. Hence Putin decided to attack Ukraine now as otherwise Ukraine was getting military aid from the West and could possibly get it's economy into shape, so Putin was in a hurry.

If there's one book in history I'd want to be discovered, it would be Zeno's book. If I recall correctly from Parmenides, the book had been stolen.

A book by a genuine supporter of the Eleatic school, not those who were against it (even if respectable, as Platon was in Parmenides). And the interesting bit would be the paradoxes, that Zeno had described, but have now been lost to history.

So I think it all comes down to "the Putin disease" as you put it. Some delusional leaders or leader who just does something without any regard for the consequences. — Christoffer

I think there simply has to be already a fancy term for this.

But it's basically that leaders start believing their own lies. They gather around themselves "a team" of yes-men that most vividly regurgitate these lies and make them better. In the end, the lie that they sometime earlier knew to be a convenient lie becomes really the truth, the holy cause that fate has given them to do. Their destiny.

It's not about taking sides but about recognizing that powerful nations will pursue their interests as brutally as they can get away with, regardless of who they are. — Baden

Well, if there's a will there's a way and those powerful nations can get their hubris shoved up their ass. It really healthy for them.

What I cannot understand why some cannot both oppose wars of conquest from both Russia and the US.

It works well on both sides. "We're prepared for war because they are." The arms vendors win. — frank

Yet notice the subtle difference of having a military as deterrence and not using it to the option of having a military and starting wars with it.

While I agree that this is and should be what we should aspire to, the reality is sovereignty means fuck all. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, rendition etc. — Benkei

Pakistan? How Pakistan? Actually Pakistan is just a great example and the way how the US treated a country that assisted a lot the fighters that the US fought and lost to. Pakistan is the crazy example of a country being an "ally" to both sides and getting away with it.

Afghanistan? Well, the Emirate of Afghanistan is back after fighting a long war against the US, which was backed by NATO. Even South Vietnam held a bit longer than the US backed Afghanistan. So did also the Najibullah regime too.

And finally Iraq. Well, I could start just how problematic and stressed the US-Iraqi relations are, but you would be bored, I guess, and this response would be too long.

The Cuban crisis was averted because the Russians pulled back. NATO decided to play chicken with Ukrainian lives on the line. — Benkei

Historical events aren't monocausal. Yet again this continuous ignorance of any agency of either the Cubans or the Ukrainians themselves.

When it came to Cuba, the US tried everything else but a large scale invasion and it's the Cubans themselves who defended their beaches during the Bay of Pigs landing. Nicaragua has Ortega, Venezuela has Maduro and Cuba is governed by the Communists. That should tell how successful the US has been in it's own back yard after all the proxy wars, the failed coup attempts and covert actions. Just like Russia with Ukraine...only now Russia has opted for all out war. Be their policy choices good or bad, but these countries have shown quite well the limitations of even an Superpower.

Ukraine wanted to join NATO because it obviously could see the imminent danger it was in. And it was no "neo-nazis" that started the march toward NATO membership. It was Leonid Kravchuk, the last Soviet leader of Ukraine and first President of Independent Ukraine, who started the road with Ukraine joining the partnership for peace. Sure, Kravchuk obviously made a huge mistake on thinking that Russia would agree to international law and the promises it made in Budapest in 1994. Yet that was their error: to believe Russia's promises.

An Ukrainian President's "Peace at our time"-error moment in Budapest 1994. Just Like Chamberlain in 1938.


NATO enlargement is simply a side issue here, one thing that Putin extensively uses as a pretext for his imperialistic ambitions. Which, of course when it comes to Russia, are "defensive".

The real issue here is that Russia with Putin at it's helm didn't understand that the Russian Empire was over. They had lost it when the Soviet Union collapsed. Just like Austria had lost the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the British had lost their Empire. For some reason, Putin thinks that he can get it back. That Russia has some right for "a sphere of influnce". It genuinely might have that, if it wouldn't be openly so hostile against it's neighbors.

It would be as if the Netherlands simply "would have a say" in the internal politics of Indonesia and it could freely intervene in Indonesian domestic politics... because, that is the way it is. And then we would talk about Dutch, American and Chinese agenda and objectives in Indonesia and would disregard totally a country with 270 million people. Because that's how the narrative "all this happened because of NATO enlargement" seems to be like.

Speaking of that imperialism, Russia simply doesn't have the economic basis or military capacity to project an empire so I find such claims divorced from reality. — Benkei

Trying to invade Ukraine and overthrow the Ukrainian government was totally delusional on divorced from reality. Yet Putin did it.

Having the grandeur thoughts of Novorossija, are also divorced from reality, but really is at the core of the genuine Russian imperialism. Disguised naturally in the "protection" from the evil West. The whole issue of territorial annexations should make it totally clear that it isn't just jingoistic "loonie talk".

I don't think anyone has taken for granted what the Russians said, except for one thing: they have repeatedly pointed out they do not want NATO to expand eastward. — Benkei

And that is the pretext Putin surely uses and many believe want to continue their self-flogging. Yet simply the Russian rhetoric makes it totally clear (and Russian actions in ex-Soviet countries that aren't anywhere close to NATO) that Russia will continue it's imperialist policies, will try to control them. Will with a heavy hand lay done a truly imperialist "sphere of influence".

Were the Baltic States not in NATO and not in the EU, there fate would be totally obvious: they would have Russian military bases and Russia would dictate their foreign policy. That should be absolutely totally clear to people. It is totally clear to us Finns. Why simply Vladimir Putin has any justification to say how sovereign states manage their alliances?

It's a blessing that Eastern European countries and the Baltics did have the chance to join NATO and the EU. We have now seen just how dangerous Russia is.

I just find it hard to see China justify something in the way Russia has done. I think they know the power they have globally and don't want to risk any of that. China seems to be interested in being a superpower, not being an empire, as those are two different things. — Christoffer

There is Taiwan. The island held by the enemy from the Civil War.

Of course they will survive, but I'm not sure they want to sink that low, I don't think they see any benefits to risking what they've built up. — Christoffer

If feel threatened, they will act. It's a different play then.

And they don't care about corporations. If a corporation is troublesome, the owner or the CEO will just vanish. The government is one who calls the shots, not the corporations. And if you mean foreign corporations, they're naturally expendable, likely untrustworthy.

And if the Chinese get the "Putin-disease", start looking at how the US and West goes after countries and start thinking it's just a matter of time before they are in the crosshairs, then they'll do it and prepare for similar outcomes. Of course it's a disastrous policy, absolutely ruinous, but what can you do if you go down that rabbit hole. If people get restless about the economy, one thing is to go to war and create the enemy you will fight also at home. Just like Putin now.

Because I'm sure some Chinese, those responsible of national security, will look at what is happening to Russia and assume they can be next. Now if these people make warplans, fine. That's their job. But if the leadership starts being delusional and think that the US will sooner or later attack, then it's everybody's problem.

I think China is too dependent on trade - China needs a variety of trade much more than Russia does. — Christoffer

National security trumps always trade with the West. If the Chinese truly feel threatened by the West, they will dump all those trade relations with the West in a heartbeat. Just like Russia has done. Ukraine was for Trump far important than trade relations.

Nations always start thinking about these issue from national security, not from trade policy. And this has huge effects. They will look at first securing the resources, raw materials, food security, that basically keep the society not ending up having a famine. And that is way different than thinking about how the economy will go. Global trade brings prosperity, but security is about survival. And countries will easily dump prosperity, if it's their security issues at stake. Here below is one way to look at how things look for China.

First of all, just how important are exports to China? As China has grown, the importance of the export sector has gotten smaller since the first decade of this millennium:



Now the export sector is less than 20% of the GDP. In fact with Russia the export sector was a larger percentage of the GDP than with China. Let's look at just where China gets it's oil:



Again countries that aren't going with sanctions even to Russia. Then let's look at how the World looks to China by the amount it exports to countries and how much it imports from foreign countries. (Note that the map has Macao and Hong Kong, which are part of China)




And from these, we can look at the trade balance, what countries are net importers and net exporters.



Notice that the largest importers of oil to China are Russia, Angola and Saudi-Arabia. Countries that won't likely join the embargoes of the West.

Yet when you look at the Imports map, you notice that even together they are a fraction of the imports from South Korea. In fact Russia isn't important as a trading partner for China. But for the China, it is the major ally. Hence to answer your argument: China isn't too dependent on trade. If it's the position of the Chinese Communist Party on the line, they will dump everything and go martial law, if it comes to that.

Basically China has to do a balancing act.

If it goes all in with Putin and strengthens it's alliance with Russia, that's basically the end of globalization. Invading Taiwan would also surely do this, but also I think there is a possibility it just inadvertently falls into the sanctions hole with Russia. Russia is now basically dependent on it, so it's unlikely not to use the situation to it's advantage.

The World could now quite easily separate into two blocs. That's the end of globalization as we have known it for thirty years now.

Yeah, and Russian free rein in the Ukrainian sky, eyes and bombers, makes it difficult. — jorndoe

That's why the urge to have no-fly zones or an effective SAM cover. Yet I wouldn't call it free rein. In the way we have seen Russian Air Force roam around freely above Syria. Of course, there is the Ukrainian SAM defense network, basically from the Soviet era, but still somewhat potent. Likely it is tried to be preserved and used to inflict some losses. And likely still has the effect of Russians being cautious.

If my country really would have given something useful to Ukraine, they would have given those 20 BUK-M1 units to the country as Ukraine has the same missile system at use. But I guessed the Finnish units demolished. And one missile system put into a museum!



And, of course, Putin would be even more angry.

One can always argue that everything is fake: things just become more and more complex and more elaborately staged and larger conspiracies.

Of course, in the time of twitter and facebook and all the equivalents, these are possible to verify.

Usually the "fake news" argument is only to capture the moment as the focus will surely move to the next thing at least in a week or so. Hence the obvious fakeness of fake news doesn't even matter. That some people or organizations verify it to be fake doesn't matter, as the verification will take time. The idea is only to confuse. Or just to change the discourse. Yet not all propaganda is lying. Best is to tell the truth. A wonderful example of propaganda towards the enemy was German WW1 propaganda aimed at Americans joining the war. The piece urged the American joining the Army simply to dig a hole in their backyard, fill it with water, go to sit in the whole and have a lunatic to try to shoot you while in the hole. In fact, an apt description of the trenches of WW1.

As said, propaganda is usually something that will try to affect ones feelings, not thinking. To instill the feeling of outrage, compassion, fear, joy, upbeat patriotism, and so on.

Perfect example of propaganda to instill the fighting spirit and have people to support the Ukrainian cause is the case of the tractors towing enemy armour. It's a popular, funny upbeat meme. Here Radio Free Europe shows a montage that could be easily shown in Russian media, if the sides just would be different (Ukrainians being the invaders and Russians the defenders).



I think that we should simply have the ability to notice what is such influencing and once we understand the "spin", we can make our own conclusions. If there is propaganda in an message, then just take it to account. Notice what is true and what is spin. I think that people give far too importance to propaganda and media influencing and simply use it as an excuse, "Everything being propaganda", to not to even bother about the issues at hand.

Motti-tactics were specific to the Finnish Boreal Forest North of lake Lagoda, where the Russians were constrained to narrow roads to move any heavy equipment or supplies through the forest; Finns could use their advantage of ski and other winter forest tactics to cutup and destroy these columns (including excellent mortar teams trained precisely due to the near vertical terminal descent of mortars perfect for hitting targets between tall trees). — boethius

Well, The Germans did pocket whole armies when they attacked in 1941, so encirclement of enemy forces can be done basically anywhere. In Kiev 1941 there was one of those huge pockets resulting in over half a million Soviet soldiers being captured.

Yet such encirclements need conventional formations. The initiative, if small and slow, still seems to be with the Russians.

The following video also gives a lot of context: — boethius

I'll look this up. But do note that this was before the current war. What is totally obvious, coming from so many various observers is that Russia armed forces have performed very poorly. This has been really something similar as to the first Chechen War. And I think the political leadership and the highest military command is responsible for this. This is now undeniable. Yet now the war is moving on to the next phase. And this is important to understand.

it's of course up for debate how well it has worked and extremely difficult to evaluate based almost solely on information Ukraine side chooses to public. — boethius

I have to correct you here a bit.

The information isn't based on just what the Ukrainian side chooses to publicize. A lot of actors do have genuine reasons to get a realistic picture of the war. For example Finnish commentators don't have an incentive to go with the most favourable Ukrainian view and they truly have an incentive to get the most truthful picture of Russian warfighting abilities.. Do note that that the US and other Western intelligence did choose to make public their intel, which was proven right. As I said earlier, the objectives how Russia would attack and where it would attack was proved correct. The satellite imagery does tell a lot. And do note that actually the US intel itself has gone against Ukrainian information warfare with for instance noting that Belarussian forces have not engaged in Ukraine (which the Ukrainians earlier were briefly saying).

What should be noted, and is nearly not mentioned, is the Ukrainian side. Although they have made counterattacks, these have been small. And naturally they too have had serious losses. What is really lacking is that Ukraine would make larger counterattacks and surround larger Russian units and hence use as Finland did in Winter War the famous motti-tactics. Basically what has been reported is that some Battalion Tactical Groups have been stopped and have sustained losses. Here is the crucial issue as sooner or later Ukraine has to fight the war of attrition.


Notice that the map hasn't changed much for days. So at least the Ukrainian defense isn't collapsing yet.

What is worrisome is that many commentators are discussing the "escalate-to-de-escalate" option that Putin has. Some of it can of course be to stoke more Putin-fear, but seems that in many places people are thinking if Putin would use then the nuclear card to solve an imppasse, if it comes to that.

Concessions given. Time for Putin to stand down, or at least chill out and head to the talking table? One could hope. — jorndoe

Chilling out for Putin likely means resupplying and rearming his forces. He'll likely at least push for the land corridor to Crimea, so Mariupol has to give. Kyiv? Now that swift regime change is out of the question, perhpas just to bomb it to rubble. As a "negotiating tactic". Kyiv has many of those high rise apartment buildings, so it will likely be in the end just as devastated like the some European city after WW2.

till, there's been an outcry in Russia, and even an official acknowledgement that conscripts have been sent to Ukraine "by mistake." Some of these 18-19-year boys have only had a few months of basic training before being sent into battle! — SophistiCat

Imagine what the outcry is if they seriously try to then press reservists into going to war, those who have done their military service and haven't made any kind of contract with the military in this situation. Their moral sure will be high, especially when they aren't the age of the "average Fox viewer in the US". :roll:

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support. Public health campaigns fit under this definition. I find this anti-alcohol poster quite effective — jamalrob

I agree, and also believe it's not limited to one side or World view.

Perhaps the thing with propaganda that it's basically very aggressive. Propaganda doesn't say "Here is our viewpoint and solution, but feel free to think about something else". It doesn't list pros and cons and give people to come to their own conclusions. It's that the other side is wrong. And not just wrong, but dangerously wrong. And what is promoted isn't just right, it's the only crucial way or we face utter doom. The issues aren't questionable and cannot be compromised. Propaganda wants to instill passion to the cause.

In a way for example Greta is a propagandist, a modern day Jeanne d'Arc, who herself was basically a tool of medieval propaganda. Young Greta excoriating adults for not doing enough and these then wildly cheering for Greta is propaganda. Of course now when she is a young adult and soon a middle aged women, the role of the innocent child telling the truth isn't for her anymore. And of course the pregnant mother in Mariupol carried on a stretcher who then dies along with the unborn child is also used as propaganda. It naturally evokes strong feelings.

(And let's just have only the picture of Greta here)

I would urge people to listen to a thoughtful discussion with Princeton history professor Stephen Kotkin, who has written on Russian and Soviet history. He has written a biography of Stalin. It's one of the nuanced discussion of the NATO expansion and Russia and about the war. Also is discussed the link to China and Taiwan and the differences with the China-Taiwan problem. The discussion is more than an hour. (The interview was done on day 8 of the war)



I assume that people on this thread know the general history of events, so the discussion isn't too complicated. (And obviously an American view)

She asked for it, evidently. The bully is entirely predictable by others, like a machine would be, and has zero responsibility for his own acts. So if he raped her, it must be that she pushed him to it. Ergo she asked for it... — Olivier5

And of course, it's bad what the bully did. But she really shouldn't have existed in the first place.

And when a woman gets raped by that bully, it must follow that she did exactly what one needs to do to get raped, right? — Olivier5

Exactly. She was a woman!

She shouldn't have existed, hence then the rapist bully wouldn't have raped her.

Here is a video I found that might help explain some of problems between Russia and NATO — dclements

Absolutely fabulous! :100: :up:

If there's a video telling what I've tried to say, this one is it!

The only thing it left out was a) NATO's war in Kosovo and a) The Chechen Wars.

Thanks for finding that!

No conscription is required, I am willing and wanting to defend what I perceive to be mine to defend. I may need training, or equipment, etc. but that is all. — Book273

That's actually the point of conscription and a reservist army: it's not that you may need training, you need training. And that basically takes at least 6 months or so. The war might be over well in six months. Historical examples show well just how much time is needed to create an army out of people that haven't any training. At large scale, you are talking at least about a year.

Furthermore, the war in Ukraine clearly shows again that nations that want peace don't mobilize before there is an attack. That your country would start to train you in peacetime would be a huge escalation, and give ammunition to the invaders that it's actually your country that is the aggressor and they are only defending themselves.

Israel hasn't fought it wars with conscripts, it has fought it's conventional wars with reservists. Those reservists haven't only done their conscription, but they have also trained afterwards to keep up their skills.

I agree maybe 10% is too low ... but nearly 90% committed to Ukraine seems too high. — boethius

Well, 90% of 280 000 is 252 000, hence even if you take into account the National Guard units fighting in Ukraine, not so much is committed to Ukraine. But it's logical that they cannot withdraw troops for example from Kaliningrad and leave other places totally void of troops.

For example, let's say 35% of troops of some base have been requisitioned for the war in Ukraine, as things go on, they will start to be rotated out with the fresh troops still on base; still 35% from that base committed to the war, but different people. — boethius

Or then start calling in the reserves.

It's likely that units made from reservists will need at least few weeks or a month to train and to get synergy. Deployments of fresh troops doesn't happen in days. So basically I think for Putin to hold talks, have some kind of cease fire might be a good option. In order to reorganize the forces to a next push. Yet the thing is that during that time the West can replenish the Ukrainian forces too.

I was just responding to your mention Putin as a dictator, which I initially interpreted as just moral condemnation, so wanted to make that part clear. — boethius

Ok. Actually it wasn't meant as a moral condemnation (even if Putin deserves all the moral condemnation there is).

No, the fact is that dictators and authoritarian regimes are basically scared of their own security apparatus and hence they divide the apparatus to various competing organizations. Saddam Hussein had his Army and then his Republican Guard. Even the Saudis have the Army and separately a National Guard made of largely tribesmen. Now a sparsely populated Saudi-Arabia with Iraq (at the time of Hussein) and Iran would logically need a powerful army. But for the monarchy a powerful army is an internal threat: there could be an Arabian version of colonel Nasser who throws out the corrupt monarchy. Hence the division of the defense forces into separate organizations. And the traditional example would be the Third Reich with the Wehrmacht and the SS.

Neither me nor Isaac or @Benkei (to the extent he's criticizing NATO / EU as well) have defended Putin's decisions morally. — boethius

I'm not accusing you of that! I'm only making the point that it's wrong to say only 1/10 of Russian forces are deployed to Russia. There isn't the 9/10 to be deployed there.

Just add up the figures and you do get the nearly one million. 280 000 + 340 000 + 200 000 +....

The basic fact is that they don't have a reserves similar to fight a conventional war. And Putin surely cannot send all of his National Guard and all of the FSB border guards to Ukraine and leave Moscow and St Petersburg just being taken care of by the local police.

Then there is the issue of how well these forces are capable of conventional combat. How well do forces that basically are for crowd control and imprisoning ordinary people, are able to fight the Ukrainians armed with those NLAWs and Javelins. A bit different from rioters throwing rocks. They also don't posses so many main battle tanks and heavy artillery.

Yet conscripts might also have a far more pragmatic approach to fighting, an attitude of "Let's just get over with it, as quickly and as effectively as possible". They don't have any profound moral or otherwise metaphysical motivations for fighting, so no issues with justification.
There's even a saying, "It's easy to do that which must be done." — baker

Especially in the West there is one huge disadvantage, or actually an advantage in some perspective.

Conscripts or reservists that have done conscription aren't volunteers. They aren't people who have opted for a military career.

And this can be a huge political issue. The whole attitude towards them is different. You can send volunteers to fight in some international operation, but now you are talking about of "ordinary" people. Of course there isn't much difference to the volunteers and for example here in my country Blue Berets or those who have participated in peacekeeping / peace-enforcing operations are highly respected, yet everybody understands the difference between voluntary and being a professional soldier and being a "citizen-soldier".

I think in Europe only Turkey has sent into it's combat operations conscripts.

Russia has only committed 10% of it's standing army to Ukraine, and so can also rotate units in and out of the war as well as reinforce if it needs. — boethius

That's actually incorrect.

Armed forces and land forces are quite different.

Russian Ground Forces consist of only 280 000 troops. If you have 190 000 in Ukraine, that's basically it. Putin is not sending the personnel of the Air Force or the Navy or the Strategic Rocket forces to fight it out in urban combat in the streets of Kyiv. The only option is to start calling in reservists.

What has to be understood that Putin truly is a dictator, and just like Saddam or Ghaddafi, he is scared about the Armed Forces being a monolithical power in Russia. Hence Putin established the National Guard, the Rosgvardiya, in 2016 and with 340 000 men it is far larger than the land forces component of the Russian Army. It is headed not by a professional soldier, but by Putin's loyal judo friend Viktor Zolotov, who by education was a turner( someone who shapes wood) who then became a bodyguard of Yeltsin and befriended Putin. The National Guard is basically for crowd control and domestic security, although they naturally have also been in the fight in Ukraine. Then there is the FSB that has about 160 000 to 200 000 border guards.


About Zolotov, Navalnyi (now in jail) irked him about the Zolotov's personal wealth (corruption). His response:

"You have made me the subject of insulting, defamatory remarks," Zolotov said. "You know, it is not customary among officers simply to forgive. From time immemorial, scoundrels have had their faces smashed and been called to duels." Addressing the activist as "Mr. Navalny," Zolotov continued: "No one is stopping us from reviving at least some of these traditions, by which I mean seeking satisfaction. I challenge you to single combat — in the ring, on the judo mat, wherever, and I promise to make juicy, tenderized meat out of you."

This is totally from the dictators playbook. Have opposing factions in the security realm so you cannot be overthrown by a military coup. Of course the arrangement is detrimental for fighting a large scale war, but that's not the principle idea that dictators like Putin have in mind.

(It doesn't end there. For example Russia has separately even armed Railway troops, a force of 28 000)

Which is which? Red tones are for yes, or for no to the question at the top? — baker

I think that the red means that people are less willing to fight for their country (like with Germany only 18%) and the blue that the majority of people are willing to fight for their country.

After all, for some defense is just one thing taken care by paying taxes.

With Ukraine we have seen something that usually has been extremely rare, especially in this Milennium. That is that all males between 18 to 60 are barred to leave the country. This is about, I don't know, perhaps 7 to 10 million men, which simply cannot be put into the military. There's absolutely no way or desire to field such a force and a huge part of people simply have to work sustaining the society itself (just think of the agricultural sector, which employed 14% of Ukrainians, which is a huge number).

The example clearly shows the pros and cons about conscription. Your manpower problems are solved, but then you get a lot of other problems starting from the motivation of the conscripts and the huge effort in training that you have to do. The conscript/reservist army has to have the training, the ability and the motivation to fight. Then it can perform well. Otherwise you might a have a paper tiger of a forces, which a highly trained enemy can go like knife through melted butter.

Larger countries simply don't need universal conscription or even partial conscription. United States or India doesn't need reservists in such number. Hence today only the minority countries have conscription and even fewer with universal conscription. Roughly 70-85 nations or so have compulsory service of the 195 countries.

Looks like Russia is taking a breather. Simply to stack on supplies and some brigades that have endured losses have been withdrawn.

Here's an interesting map showing also NATO forces in NATO countries. And refugees. Also the higher military units, like the 1st GTA (1st Guards Tank Army).



Quite similar to the Finnish Defense University's map, so that's two different references portraying a similar situation:

Both the acceptance and the effectiveness of conscription starts from things like this...


Not sure the percentages are correct, but something like that it might be. There are huge differences.

The reason to focus on EU / NATO and US policy is because:

A. They have the most leverage with Russia currently. — boethius

Actually, the most leverage on Russia has now China.

Russia is now dependent on Chinese imports, while for China exports from Russia aren't so important. That Russia now wants to get arms from China is a historical first. If true, it's a major change as before it has been all the time the other way around. To ask arms from China also shows that there have been true losses on the Russian side. And there's a multitude of those pictures of destroyed armour.

What's tiresome on this thread, which is why I'm not really participating anymore, is the inability of some posters to accept any form of criticism of the US and NATO policy for decades contributing to the current situation — Benkei

At least I have tried to say where the US and the West has made errors, with the crucial one being promising to Ukraine and Georgia something that they wouldn't keep and hence putting both countries in a perilous state.

Yet it should be noted that totally disregarding the role of Putin and Russia is not only biased but simply wrong. Also to totally disregard the third parties as mere puppets is wrong. There aren't any monocausal issues in history and just blaming the West and stating that "I don't care" about Putin's actions isn't perhaps the smartest thing to do.

I don't trust the Western narrative and won't unless it's corroborated by different sources and that generally takes a few months to clear up, considering how often we've been lied to. — Benkei

One shouldn't then take for granted what Russia says either. There's so many blatant lies it is similar to picking up the truths in what Trump says. So going with the narrative that the Kremlin promotes is after a point a bit dubious. Likely the US can tell the truth when it fits their agenda. Similarly would Russia behave.

He seems like a chill dude, doing well, under tremendous pressure. — StreetlightX

Not to forget that this is like instead of Churchill (or basically Chamberlain), the British would have voted Charlie Chaplin to head their country in the war against Hitler. Perhaps Chaplin would have succeeded in that role perfectly, he surely was against fascism and Hitler right from the start and likely could have acted in a very serious role.

The victory of Zelenskyy (and his new party) just shows how fed up Ukrainians were in the corruption of it's political system. He has made errors, like not mobilizing the reserve basically only after Putin had launched the invasion. And I think that how his party has turned from supporting pure libertarianism to a more centrist approach shows that they were learning about the realities in the World also.

Now the crucial thing is not to overplay the Ukrainian hand in the negotiations or to give too quickly to Putin.

Do you think conscription is fair, moral/ ethical and or appropriate? — Benj96

Yes.

If there is a credible threat to the country. If there isn't, if let's say your neighbors are as peaceful as Canada, why then bother? The threat and the need for deterrence is absolutely crucial. A country that isn't threatened by anyone doesn't need an army. And situations can change: had Switzerland not had a huge militia based army, it's totally logical that someone would have occupied them during WW1 and WW2 or at worst, had become a battlefield for the opposing armies.

My country has conscription. It works. If we would have a volunteer force, the tiny army wouldn't simply have any deterrence. In fact, the war in Ukraine is just showing that a well trained reservist army does have it's advantages. Those who deplore conscription usually tactically forget Israel, which has among the best professional armies in the World and depends on reservists.

Then if basically the only reason the army exists is to control the own people, then it would be far proper to have some Gendarmerie. For example Costa Rica doesn't have any army, yet the country lives in a very rough neighborhood. The country has stayed peaceful. Then compare the history to Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala.

I choose the side of those who'd rather avoid all the bloodshed and horror of war than act out their Star Wars fantasies with a population of innocent civilians. — Isaac

Do they have a name? A leader? A phone number perhaps?

Which REAL, identifiable side do you support? — Olivier5

Isn't it obvious? There's no side he is willing to take. He'll invent this "innocent people" group, who are totally separate of the actions. I think those 2,5 million Ukrainians or those Russians fleeing Russia because of the developments in the country do have opinions about which side is at fault and which isn't.

Because there is an aggressor fighting a war of conquest and there is a defender, that is supported by the US, @Isaac will surely not pick either of them. Because @Isaac doesn't want to give any credibility to the US as being here in the role of being a "Knight in white shining armour", hence he cannot back up the Ukrainians.

Oh the horror of supporting here the Ukrainians fighting Putin! As if one then couldn't be critical of US actions in let's say in Yemen and the Middle East.

And I really, really hope Zelensky survives. I expect the worst but I will definitely shed a lot of tears if those bastards take him out. — Wayfarer

I do also. And I hope that the Ukrainian casualties stay low, because there's a chance that they could be truly hideous. Yet that's the price to pay for independence and surely if there was any doubt of an Ukrainian identity when the Soviet Union collapsed, it is forged in steel right now, every day...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1503024136523767814