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.

Nonsense?

Obviously these votes will basically exclude the possibility of any negotiated settlement with Ukraine. — boethius

That's the attempt... a desperate attempt to regain justification for the annexation of Ukrainian territory and make them part of Holy Mother Russia. The elections are nonsense, a fraud, sham referendums.

Doesn't matter if you think the votes are legitimate, or fraudulent, or whatever; it's the most significant thing happening today and, presumably if the votes conclude as basically everyone expects, results in a dramatic shift in Russian policy. — boethius

Lol.

Oh really, it doesn't matter if the elections are fraudulent or not to you? Right. :rofl:

Fraudulent elections that are a scam arent in any way important. Only shows that Russia uses similar tactics as Stalin''s Soviet Union did.

Just to think of it, holding elections in a territory that is a battlefield, and not basically defined in any way just what territory and what people are part is taking the referendum. It's absolutely crazy, but if you want to make these attempts from Putin to be somehow credible, then attempt to do it, I don't care.

We already knew this from the gaffe that the Russian intelligence director made as he confused the acknowledgement of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics to them joining Russia. (Which Putin was mad about)

Of course, the most significant thing happening today is the referendum votes to join Russia. — boethius

Which, of course, is absolute nonsense and should be remarked as it.

I've heard that the voting will be done "online". So no reason even to stage people for this theater. The Crimean elections, and then there was genuine support for the annexation, had to be orchestrated as likely free and fair voting wouldn't have got the results needed (even if there was a substantial amount of yes-votes).

Let's hear Putin himself:

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.

“The epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself,” he said, referring to separatist movements such as those in Chechnya.

There is no contradiction, if you read the above. It's not a wavering opportunist speaking, this comment from 2005 (I think) shows clearly the way how Putin has thought all his reign.

we're not talking about Putin, we're talking about "Russian identity". I'm resisting that idiotic sweeping generalisation. — Benkei

Then add to it "Russian national identity", if it's so puzzling to you what I'm talking about.

Because we aren't talking about Russian cuisine, which I love btw, which also has a part in the Russian Identity.

we're not talking about Putin, we're talking about "Russian identity". I'm resisting that idiotic sweeping generalisation. — Benkei

Well, do notice that I have emphasized, many times now, that I am talking about the identity that official Russia has, and what Putin and his followers cherish. It is an imperial identity, if you think of it for a moment. Fortress Russia. A Zapadnik might hold other views, but Zapadniks are not in power in Russia.

The Kremlin conducted a campaign against radical nationalists in the 2010s, and as a result, many of them are currently imprisoned - However, the Kremlin scaled nationalism down out of fears that prominent figures such as Igor Girkin began to act independently, following a brief period of stirring activism that resulted in Russian men volunteering to fight in Donbas in 2014 and 2015, according to Lipman. In Lipman's view, the Kremlin's aim is to prevent emotions that "might get out of control and motivate people to act independently — Wiki

Yes, Putin is a politician. I assume that Ernst Röhm was a devoted Nazi and totally in line with the ideology of the party, yet for 'some reason' Hitler killed him.

Nationalism, or basically jingoism, works for Putin. Yet if the Soviet Union would be still around, I guess KGB officer Vladimir Putin would be devoted still to that cause. Again, there's no contradiction.

I'm not the one making sweeping claims about Russian identity based on a few speeches by Putin or even the existence of nationalism in a country. It's pretty clear Putin has been using nationalist sentiments as a political tool. First he cracks down on it, then he employs it, then he puts the breaks on it because others are getting to popular. And if some support is enough to support claims of the existence of Russian identity as you're doing now then equally showing there's some lack of support proves the opposite. — Benkei

By "cracking down on it" you mean restarting the war against the Chechens? That is totally in line with the imperialist cause. Putin obviously tolerates minorities, as long they don't want to separate from the Empire. That is natural for an Empire.

And making "sweeping claims" "based on a few speeches"?

How about actions and implemented policy, Benkei?

Starting from the annexation of Crimea.

It isn't just rhetoric. I think moves like that (annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war) put the counterarguments to the "sweeping claims" category.

It contradicts the facts and still you maintain it by equivocating the acquiescence to existing power by a population that has barely any agency, with support.

Jesus. — Benkei

Jesus yourself, Benkei!

How many Belarussians love their leader? Not a lot, but he is still in power. Are there Turks that don't like Erdogan? Sure, but he is in power also. Must there be someone that is OK with their leaders in both countries? Naturally.

There is absolutely no contradiction in that official Russia is, and Putin and his followers are imperialistic and that in the same time there are Russian who are against the war in Ukraine and who don't want to participate in that war.

I don't understand how you can see a contradiction there. I've met enough Russians who aren't for Putin to know that.

Germany being Germany, which is nice.

Germany is ready to take in Russian deserters, ministers signalled Thursday, amid reports of people fleeing the partial mobilization ordered by President Vladimir Putin.

"Deserters threatened with serious repression can as a rule obtain international protection in Germany," Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said, according to excerpts from an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper.

"Anyone who courageously opposes Putin's regime and thereby falls into great danger, can file for asylum on grounds of political persecution," she said.

Separately, Justice Minister Marco Buschmann tweeted using the hashtag "partial mobilization" that "apparently, many Russians are leaving their homeland -- anyone who hates Putin's path and loves liberal democracy is welcome in Germany".

The Russian identity is imperialistic. The official one and that upheld by Putin and his followers.

And as we know, not all Russians support this. Haven't for a time as many have fled to places like Georgia even before this mobilization. That the Russian National Guard has more troops than the Russian Army ground forces tells you something just what Putin is afraid of. (National Guard is for domestic safety, previously been Ministry of Interior troops)



Still, the fact is that enough do support Putin. Even if that might be changing.

Every nation has it's ardent "Trump supporters". If there is a Trump around and in power.

So why are posters here wanting to deny it? — apokrisis

It's far too annoying for many that sometimes the US President and elite can utter something that is totally right and justified. As if that makes somehow the criticism about other issues less valuable.

Just look at what people said on this thread before February 24th. The time when the US was saying that Russia was going to attack Ukraine starting from page 2. Just to take it in the most obvious and clearly stated comment:

The ultimate bad actor in this whole situation is the US, and anyone who looks at Russia being an active 'bad guy' with Western powers merely 'reacting' to Russian agression has no fucking idea what they are talking about. — Streetlight

For some, everything bad comes from the US and only this should be said. Period.

Hence talking about Russia, the idea of Russia or what Putin thinks about Russia is meaningless.

I just don't see much justification for reaching for this "physics says that's impossible" line. — Srap Tasmaner

It doesn't make it a non-physical event. I am of the opinion that if something cannot be explained by physics, it's likely that our understand isn't yet correct or we simple are asking wrong questions.

But especially in what we consider a "paranormal event", let's say for example a near death experience where somebody has been (obviously wrongfully) declared dead and then wakes up and tells about the experience, it's hard to refute the feelings of that person. The discussion is basically sidetracked. Or if you are seriously ill and the doctors don't give you much chance to live, and then you are visited by a "healer" (why not, if modern medicine doesn't do the trick) and then, what do you know, you get better. If the "healers" bizarre medicine worked on you (and hasn't worked on many others), why wouldn't you think it still works sometime?

Perhaps we the topic isn't so loaded if we would think about issues that are called to be miracles.

While it is almost a given that the majority of such instance where merely tricks and/or something other than psychic abilities/paranormal, I believe it is at least plausible a very small fraction of them could be real. — dclements

I think there can be, even if very rare, occasions and events that seem to be as some paranormal event happened or someone had psychic abilities. With people really believing it and not being some charlatans. Religious people would talk about miracles. These events have extremely low probability of happening, yet they happen. Somebody feeling that a loved one is in danger and does something to help the person and the person actually has been peril and the actions help that person. Or something like that. Totally possible.

The simple example that we can understand is winning in the lottery. Getting a multi-million win in a lottery is extremely improbable, yet enough play these games that someone wins it. Hence when we understand probability theory there's nothing astonishing in that one or two players get the big bucks as so many play. It would be for us something out of the normal if we would have only 5 people playing a lottery (like here getting 7 numbers right out of the numbers between 1 and 40, which has a probability of 1 to 15 million or something close to that) and one or two of them got the full jackpot. The probability would be so low that any Rand experiment, if happened to be conducted, would have serious problems to counter it.

So what's the error?

I think the simple fact is that we don't notice just how large the sample size is. If our story is some "Middle aged woman in Utah in 1932 had a psychic experience..." we can be sure that there have been a huge number of middle aged women and not only in Utah every year when the astonishing consequence of events hasn't happened. Yet people do dream of being in contact with others, alive or the dead, and then things turn out to be so. It's basically just like people who see omens of what the future will bring then look for those things they are waiting to see.

Or to put it another way: how many times your mother or grandmother has been worried that something has happened to you, when nothing has happened to you? Has that every happened to you?

people with no military training are being drafted. There was an interview on TV last night. Whatever Putin has in mind, it doesn't seem to be peace. — jorndoe

If you take all the people who have done their military service in the last five years, you are talking roughly about two million men (and some women). Yet just to retrain and arm 300 000 is not at all easy thing for Russia. Russia has not had any kind of system for reservists and for their refresher training. Hence it's going to take some time.

The multiethnic Empire of Russia survived because of the Soviet Union. The Soviet ideology hid this obvious fact as various people were simply declared to be Soviet.

Many don't understand the fact that Russia is a colonial power, because it had no oceans to cross when it invaded new territories. Yet the fact is that Central Asia or the Caucasus aren't part of Russia proper, but were linked to it like parts of Africa were linked to European imperial powers. And basically similar meddling is done now by Russia as France still exerts in some of it's former colonies (not all).

Nobody in Austria believes that the Austro-Hungarian Empire can rise again. In the Nordic countries, even if the states are in very good terms with each other, nobody is calling for the restoration of the Kalmar Union. In Russia it's different. The way to "make Russia great again" is through restoring the territory that formerly it held. Not things like improve the industries and education etc.

The idea of Russian is still quite close to what it was as an Empire and this is the real problem. I think the reason is that the Soviet Union collapsed peacefully, hence people like Putin think it was simply a mistake. A mistake that can be repaired. Yet it wasn't an unfortunate mistake. It's like a divorce: you cannot just assume that after having a divorce, in some time things will get back as they were and you will marry again.

The idea of Russia has been captured and dominated by an ugly cabal of jingoist thugs, who are used as a tool by the kleptocracy which rules Russia.

I meant that after the money has been spent needlessly inflating the size of the army and stockpiling the armament, there is no need to make any use of it for peace missions or anything actual deployment. This would only increase the deficit without generating any more bribes or political support (or so Trump seems to think). — Pierre-Normand

But remember... that isn't the case when he feels like the mission is justified and he will look good.

Trump was all eager to go after the IS. That's a classic "War on Terror" mission. And Trump got the Iranians to attack US bases with missiles as a response to his own actions (which btw. Trump didn't then respond to in fear of escalation). And lets not forget just how enthusiastic he was about telling Xi Jingping while eating dessert at Mar-a-Lago about the missile attack he made to Syria.

Trump has no values other than looking good to his supporters. Trump is a president who would instantly use military force if otherwise not using the military he would look like a "weak dick" to his USA chanting supporters.

Which is not what he's talking about. He's saying the West is pushing Ukraine to move military action into Russia (a bit unclear but I think he means Russia proper, excluding Ukrainian occupied land). Which is a lie. But the point he's making is that if that were to happen (the conflict moves until Russian soil), then he would authorise the use of nukes. It's literally in the text.

The interesting bit about the lie is that it actually opens the door that allows him to "lose" while maintaining face. — Benkei

If you said yourself that it's a lie, then isn't believing a lie crazy?

Conquering territory from another country and calling it part of your country isn't the same as being attacked and defending the boundaries of your state that other countries have accepted to be yours. But for Putin, it is the same. Hence the need for those sham referendums in the occupied territories.

Where have I argued this not to be the case? — Benkei

You were comparing the US invasion of Iraq to the current events. Perhaps I didn't get your point. But the simple fact is that regime change and annexation of territories is a bit different. Yes, both are actions that Great Powers do (or try to do). However the latter is quite classical imperialism, whereas the former is more of neo-colonialism. As we can see from the case of Iraq, that regime isn't playing so well anymore to the tunes of the US. And in case of for example Serbia (where the US successfully assisted on regime change), it isn't an ally to the US but basically a friend of Russia.

I think the crux in that quote is what he means with Russia. If he meant including Crimea and Donetsk then following that premise, I guess technically not a lie because we're supporting Ukraine to reclaim their territory* (we reject the premise of course but I want to tease out the exact meaning) and much more worrying than if he meant Russia without Ukrainian occupied territory. I was hopeful he meant the latter but could be worse obviously. — Benkei

Crimea, Donetsk and Luhans are all occupied territories. Which Putin has said are part of Russia, basically. So that's my worry about him "defending Russian territory" with nukes.

He's an isolationist and, as such, isn't opposed to foreign interventions on the ground of them being unjustified but rather on the ground of them being costly. — Pierre-Normand

Trump is basically just a populist, if there is to be found any trace of an ideology behind the man (as narcissism and lust for power isn't an ideology). Whatever his base thinks, he will think. And for populism (The evil elites are against the common people) isolationism fits well, but it doesn't have ideological background as what is referred to isolationism.

He's just opposed to spending any of the money generated by those endeavors. All that money rightly belongs to the military-industrial complex and to the politicians (including himself) who accept their bribes, why spend any more of it? — Pierre-Normand

Uh...no. Trump was for the increase of the size of the military, so he isn't opposed to spending on the army.

And of course when we are talking about Trump, he will first have had totally opposing views, but his loyal followers don't care about that, as usual.

Just listen to this:

In my first response on this thread on page 2. I wrote:

Actually, I genuinely hope that this (or similar) threads aren't going to be very long or as long as the COVID thread. Everybody understands what would make this thread go on for long... I myself have commented the Ukrainian on the Biden adminstration thread two months ago (starting here), so it's not something out of the blue. — ssu

Actually now this thread is far longer than the original Coronavirus thread, which started before the epidemic had become a global pandemic with lockdowns. It has now 267 pages and this one is on page 313.

My hopes didn't become reality, which is sad. :sad:

My error here was in not realising there is a whole bunch of you Putin apologists pushing the crackpot idea that all the Russian set-backs have been part of a grand plan to achieve very minimal invasion goals. Every reverse is a feint followed by a tactical regrouping. — apokrisis

:clap: :up:

I guess we could have given them another 20 years and another couple trillion dollars to get our “allies” ready to stand on their own feet, but really, no amount of counterfactuals can justify more intervention there. — NOS4A2

Afghanistan was wrong from the start.

Iraq was wrong from the start.

At least with Iraq it was Trump that got finally the GOP to talk the truth that the reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 were bullshit.

Yet if you think so about Afghanistan, what's then different with Iraq? The US is still there. But the country is quite on the cusp of exploding again. Shouldn't then the US leave also there?

You can be both critical and supportive of organizations or countries depending on the subject or issue.

I have no trouble of being critical against NATO and the US especially when it came to the war in Afghanistan. That war was in every respect quite disastrous starting from the basic argumentation, which was actually far more insane than the Domino-theory of the Vietnam war: that we had to be in Afghanistan because otherwise it could be a safe haven for terrorists. The sheer stupidity of that line goes beyond my imagination. Then was the ludicrous implementation of the "War on Terror". I'm critical of my own government, when it came to that fiasco.

However in the case of Ukraine, it is different. And if you don't there is any difference, then it's quite useless to have a discussion about it. If you do notice a difference, meaning that a collective defense treaty is to you (as to me) quite different from invasions of Third World countries followed by nation building, then by all means we can continue.

The inability of many of these USA haters to see that former Soviet countries and East European countries were totally justified and rational to seek the protection from an collective Western defense organization from a revanchist Russia is so telling. Yes, my country has made it's application too with a sound majority of my people (including me) favoring this.That people downplay the imperial aspirations of Russia and just view NATO enlargement as the cause for this war is actually telling.

During that time, there were several insurgencies, civil war and the rise of IS when they left. That's your idea of an occupation? Just being around seems a low bar. To me that was just a continuous conflict. — Benkei

They didn't actually leave. The "War on Terror" is still actually going on in Iraq. It just has been forgotten that some troops are still there.

(US troops in Iraq, 2022)

But sure, if that qualifies as an occupation than Russia's aim was to occupy Ukraine and to then have an insurgency on their hands and unsuccessfully try whatever the Americans were also unsuccessful at. — Benkei

I think it is beyond discussion(or debate) that Russia has imperial aspirations about Ukrainian territory as it is holding referendums to join more of the occupied territories to Russia. Annexation of territories and saying that they are an integral part of Mother Russia says the obvious to anybody with some understanding about history and the objectives of the people behind such talk.

This is a lovely piece of spin, it should get some sort of award... — Isaac

I think the prize should go to you by going so well along with the Kremlin line.

NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, but it is surely (just as is the EU) supporting Ukraine. To put into context, the US has given aid to Ukraine since February until now I guess about 15 billion. The Ukrainian defense budget was last year I guess something like 5 billion dollars. And many NATO and still non-NATO countries (like mine and Sweden) are aiding Ukraine. And why not? Ukraine was an independent country attacked by Russia.

Yet for the US and Russia, this isn't anything new compared to the Cold War:

The fact is that the Soviet Union took part in the Vietnam war far more than NATO does now with Ukraine.

From July 1965 to December 1974, more than 6000 generals and officers and more than 4,500 soldiers were sent to Vietnam as specialists.

And yet even more, in the Korean war the Soviet Air Force and the US Air Force fought each other with both sides staying silent of it. (Actually the good performance of the MiG-15 and the Soviet pilots against the USAF made the Soviets to be complacent later during the Cold War.)

But feel free to regurgitate the Putin line here word for word: they aren't fighting Ukrainians, they are fighting to defend Russia from NATO aggression.

Perhaps it's best just to quote Putin himself:

“Today our armed forces are operating across a front line that exceeds 1,000 km, opposing not only neo-Nazi formations but the entire military machine of the collective West. NATO is conducting reconnaissance across the south of Russia. Washington, London and Brussels are directly pushing Kyiv to move military action to our country. They are openly saying that Russia should be defeated on the battlefield by any means.

Nuclear blackmail has also been used. We are talking not only about the shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant – encouraged by the West – which threatens to cause a nuclear catastrophe but also about statements from senior representatives of NATO countries about the possibility and permissibility of using weapons of mass destruction against Russia: nuclear weapons. I would like to remind those who make such statements about Russia that our country also possesses various means of destruction, and in some cases, they are more modern than those of NATO countries. When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we, of course, will use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people.

This is not a bluff. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weather vane can turn and point towards them. Citizens of Russia can be convinced that our territorial independence and freedom will be provided, and I emphasize this one more time, with all means that we have at our disposal.”

See here

People who believe Putin and that Russia has been attacked by Ukraine/NATO, well, are crazy.

The thing is if he does drop one, even a so called "mini nuke", I don't see how NATO will not respond. They'd have to. But then that creates a self-feeding loop. — Manuel

I'd think the response would to increase the military aid. Have no limits like now.

I think the pressure to stop the fighting would certainly increase. You would see peace marches demanding the conflict to end. And that's basically what the "Escalate to de-escalate" strategy has as it's objective.

Furthermore, after being nuked, who the hell would condemn Zelensky for throwing in the towel if he goes for the immediate cease-fire on the lines that are held?

We have for a long time in our own preparedness taken into account this kind of situational development, in which Russia mobilizes society to be able to maintain its ability to wage war. There is still no immediate military threat to Finland. #FinnishDefenseForces

Prior to the February 24th, the official line was "Finland faces no military threat".

Going from "no threat" to "no immediate threat" it is a bit uncomfortable. :sad:

Neither of which were occupations. — Benkei

You really think that OIF wasn't an occupation?

May I remind you that US forces, if very few, are still in Iraq.

You're suggesting the FSB singlehandedly overturned military doctrine which is consistent both in NATO and Russia for decades that an offensive force to be successful needs to be at least 3 times larger than the defensive force to be successful more than half of the time and 5 times as large as a prepared, dug in defensive force. — Benkei

Ummm....assuming the forces are otherwise similar. Which they many times have not been.

Operation Desert Storm (1991 Gulf War)

US & Allied forces: 956 000
Iraqi forces: 650 000

Operation Iraqi Freedom:

US & Allies: 500 000+
Iraqi forces: 1 300 000 (theoretically), likely 500 000 active.

Russia could argue to itself that Ukrainians would be an inferior force compared to them. Let's not forget the huge military exercises that the Russian armed forces has done (that have been far larger than any NATO exercise). At least many Westerners thought this way when thinking of the superiority in materiel that Russia has enjoyed.

Yeah, it's of no use except to scare or cause an accident that will perish us all. But from his perspective, what is he to do? Admitting defeat is never an option for a nuclear power, national pride is worse than religion here. — Manuel

And that is why I fear this option. I wouldn't underestimate the impact of a genuine "mushroom cloud" in videos and photos somewhere in the Ukrainian countryside. People would simply think that it would mean an escalation to a nuclear holocaust. Which it doesn't: Ukraine has no WMD ability. It gave away it's nuclear deterrent, something that Mearsheimer himself called a huge mistake (and where I agree with Mearsheimer).

And, I would not disagree that the pressure on Kiev did not have as a first objective the capitulation of Kiev and accepting the offered peace terms, but clearly it's secondary objective was to then divert as much Ukrainian military potential to the North as possible in order to secure the land bridge and complete the siege of Mariupol. — boethius

I don't think we have here much of a disagreement.

Once when the "Race to the Capital" didn't succeed, the Russian commanders understood their weakness and withdrew from Kyiv and tried to reinforce other fronts with these units. It should be said that here Putin did follow what was reasonable in the military terms, but bad in political terms (as obviously the Ukrainians got a huge moral boosting victory). A more pigheaded politicians wouldn't have dared to disengage this way.