Russia

[skintsaint]

On 09/07/2024 at 13:41, skintsaint said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/east-asia/nroth-korea-army-training-russia-b2576401.html

NK training Russian troops. Russia must have lost a lot of skilled soldiers to not be able to train their own rookies.

https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-official-drowned-during-moscow-visit-say-russian-media-2024-07-17/

Swimming can't be part of the military training then...

[skintsaint]

https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1815895935039545576

Another one out the window, must not have given Putin the news he wanted.

[Colinjb]

14 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1815895935039545576

Another one out the window, must not have given Putin the news he wanted.

For the sake of the residents of Mariopol, hope they are using a different contractor to replace the glazing in those tower blocks they 'remodelled' during the liberation.

Had a very interesting conversation with an ethnically Russian colleague regarding the Ukraine war. The main takeaway was that she couldn't understand why Ukraine are resisting, the cost in blood to her didn't seem worth it. The idea of living under a totalitarian government didn't scare her and that the stability provided was worth it.

In her perspective, and based on that of family and friends of hers in Latvia and Ukraine, Russian speakers in those countries are being discriminated against and have been since the fall of the USSR. This in her own words extends to the banning of speaking Russian in public in Latvia. Whether this justified 500,000 Russian casualties in Ukraine was however something we didn't get onto in the remit of one lunchbreak, but the different perspective and attitude to the Western narrative (In her own words, "the BBC version of events is not reality")was worth hearing.  

Edited July 24 by Colinjb

[Jonnyboy]

On 24/07/2024 at 09:54, Colinjb said:

For the sake of the residents of Mariopol, hope they are using a different contractor to replace the glazing in those tower blocks they 'remodelled' during the liberation.

Had a very interesting conversation with an ethnically Russian colleague regarding the Ukraine war. The main takeaway was that she couldn't understand why Ukraine are resisting, the cost in blood to her didn't seem worth it. The idea of living under a totalitarian government didn't scare her and that the stability provided was worth it.

In her perspective, and based on that of family and friends of hers in Latvia and Ukraine, Russian speakers in those countries are being discriminated against and have been since the fall of the USSR. This in her own words extends to the banning of speaking Russian in public in Latvia. Whether this justified 500,000 Russian casualties in Ukraine was however something we didn't get onto in the remit of one lunchbreak, but the different perspective and attitude to the Western narrative (In her own words, "the BBC version of events is not reality")was worth hearing.  

How dare you spread such disinformation! Mods, can you check Colinjb's account for Kremlin bot activity pls?

Edited July 25 by Jonnyboy

[aintforever]

On 24/07/2024 at 09:54, Colinjb said:

For the sake of the residents of Mariopol, hope they are using a different contractor to replace the glazing in those tower blocks they 'remodelled' during the liberation.

Had a very interesting conversation with an ethnically Russian colleague regarding the Ukraine war. The main takeaway was that she couldn't understand why Ukraine are resisting, the cost in blood to her didn't seem worth it. The idea of living under a totalitarian government didn't scare her and that the stability provided was worth it.

In her perspective, and based on that of family and friends of hers in Latvia and Ukraine, Russian speakers in those countries are being discriminated against and have been since the fall of the USSR. This in her own words extends to the banning of speaking Russian in public in Latvia. Whether this justified 500,000 Russian casualties in Ukraine was however something we didn't get onto in the remit of one lunchbreak, but the different perspective and attitude to the Western narrative (In her own words, "the BBC version of events is not reality")was worth hearing.  

I don’t know about Latvia but given the history of Russia and Ukraine you can’t blame the Ukrainians for having issues with Russian influence, I would imagine the situation in Latvia is very similar. Banning a language is not something we would consider acceptable here but it definitely doesn’t justify invading a country.

We all know that Putin just wants to expand Russia, he has made his ambitions crystal clear in his own words.

 

Edited July 25 by aintforever

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Jonnyboy said:

How dare you spread such disinformation! Mods, can you check Colinjb's account for Kremlin bot activity pls?

Still not got over the fall of USSR comrade Jonny?

[Jimmy_D]

16 hours ago, Jonnyboy said:

How dare you spread such disinformation! Mods, can you check Colinjb's account for Kremlin bot activity pls?

Someone providing anecdotal evidence that Russian disinformation and propaganda works on ethnic Russians isn’t actually disinformation itself. (Or particularly surprising, unfortunately.)

It doesn’t particularly surprise me that you’re either too dim or too disingenuous to recognise the difference, though.

[Jonnyboy]

9 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

Someone providing anecdotal evidence that Russian disinformation and propaganda works on ethnic Russians isn’t actually disinformation itself. (Or particularly surprising, unfortunately.)

It doesn’t particularly surprise me that you’re either too dim or too disingenuous to recognise the difference, though.

Still enjoying your Crimean victory party James?

[egg]

18 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

Someone providing anecdotal evidence that Russian disinformation and propaganda works on ethnic Russians isn’t actually disinformation itself. (Or particularly surprising, unfortunately.)

It doesn’t particularly surprise me that you’re either too dim or too disingenuous to recognise the difference, though.

You write as if it's just Russians being led to believe a particular version of reality. Sure, they're lied to, but don't kid yourself that we're told the truth. 

Poor form seeing a mod resorting to insults btw. 

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

You write as if it's just Russians being led to believe a particular version of reality. Sure, they're lied to, but don't kid yourself that we're told the truth. 

Poor form seeing a mod resorting to insults btw. 

Calling Jonny dim is not so much insulting and just a reasonable assessment. 
 

yeah democracies and dictatorships are pretty much the same when it comes to hearing truths

[egg]

57 minutes ago, whelk said:

Calling Jonny dim is not so much insulting and just a reasonable assessment. 
 

yeah democracies and dictatorships are pretty much the same when it comes to hearing truths

Agreed re the latter, although it's clear that many don't see that.

Re the former, a mod resorting to personal nonsense on a forum that already has far too much of that isn't helpful imo. 

[Lighthouse]

Nobody believes everything they read in the western media, or thinks that all Ukrainians are Saints. That's a fantasy purported by conspiracy theorists to try and make it seem as if their crackpot theories are equally valid. They aren't.

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Agreed re the latter, although it's clear that many don't see that.

Re the former, a mod resorting to personal nonsense on a forum that already has far too much of that isn't helpful imo. 

I was being sarcastic btw. Putin, Starmer, all the same

[sadoldgit]

On 09/07/2024 at 21:00, hypochondriac said:

No you said that there should be no bombing and we should try to get ISIS round the table to talk as if you could negotiate with a medieval death cult. There was no negotiation, they were largely just destroyed. By force. 

This situation is very different of course because ISIS is not a country. 

As countless people have said, and as Netanyahu is finding out with Hamas, you can’t kill an idea. This, like every other conflict, will end with a negotiated settlement of some kind, or it won’t end at all.

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As countless people have said, and as Netanyahu is finding out with Hamas, you can’t kill an idea. This, like every other conflict, will end with a negotiated settlement of some kind, or it won’t end at all.

Which negotiated settlement did the Falklands conflict end with? I could have sworn we irrigated a few of their boats and they just f**ked off.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As countless people have said, and as Netanyahu is finding out with Hamas, you can’t kill an idea. This, like every other conflict, will end with a negotiated settlement of some kind, or it won’t end at all.

What negotiated settlement was agreed with ISIS? 

[sadoldgit]

18 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Which negotiated settlement did the Falklands conflict end with? I could have sworn we irrigated a few of their boats and they just f**ked off.

I seem to remember them irrigating a few of ours too. Nice choice of language by the way. If you listen to the Argentinians, this matter isn’t over yet.

[sadoldgit]

23 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What negotiated settlement was agreed with ISIS? 

There are numerous Islamic extremist military groups operating in the Middle East, as I am sure you understand. Has the violence ended yet? ISIS are still operational.

https://www.state.gov/the-islamic-state-five-years-later-persistent-threats-u-s-options/

Edited July 27 by sadoldgit
Added text

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

There are numerous Islamic extremist military groups operating in the Middle East, as I am sure you understand. Has the violence ended yet? ISIS are still operational.

https://www.state.gov/the-islamic-state-five-years-later-persistent-threats-u-s-options/

Who should be negotiating with them in order to end them as a threat? 

[sadoldgit]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who should be negotiating with them in order to end them as a threat? 

My point was and is that  conflict will end only in an agreed settlement. I’m terribly sorry but I can’t give you any particular named individuals who should be involved in any current or future negotiations. We can continue to go round in circles, but the bottom line is you cannot kill every single Islamic extremist or kill enough of them to make them stop through force alone. If you need further evidence you just have to look at Netanyahu’s tactics to target civilians as well as Hamas in Gaza. How do you think that is working for him? Tens of thousands of civilians killed or maimed, Gaza flattened and still no collapse of Hamas or all of the hostages freed. He might eventually bomb them to the negotiating table, but that is where they will end up one way or another. At the table.

[whelk]

SOG would have been fuming at the bombing of Dresden in WW2 and been desperate for us to be holding peace talks with Hitler.

[whelk]

43 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

My point was and is that  conflict will end only in an agreed settlement. I’m terribly sorry but I can’t give you any particular named individuals who should be involved in any current or future negotiations. We can continue to go round in circles, but the bottom line is you cannot kill every single Islamic extremist or kill enough of them to make them stop through force alone. If you need further evidence you just have to look at Netanyahu’s tactics to target civilians as well as Hamas in Gaza. How do you think that is working for him? Tens of thousands of civilians killed or maimed, Gaza flattened and still no collapse of Hamas or all of the hostages freed. He might eventually bomb them to the negotiating table, but that is where they will end up one way or another. At the table.

All I can say is you are one simple fucker. 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, whelk said:

All I can say is you are one simple fucker. 

And you are a miserable, old curmudgeon who spends his days looking for people to abuse online. So where does that leave us?

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

SOG would have been fuming at the bombing of Dresden in WW2 and been desperate for us to be holding peace talks with Hitler.

Why would I be desperate  to hold peace talks with Hitler? You do come out with some very odd stuff.

Incidentally, if you are interested in Dresden I suggest you read Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden 1945. Duckie and hypo should read it too, they like a good chuckle at the bombing of civilians. (We can add Weston to the Chuckle Bros now too).

Edited July 27 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

Come on then Whelk. You are such an huge expert on everything. Perhaps you would like to explain to us how the Russian/Ukraine war will end if not at the negotiating table.

[badgerx16]

46 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Come on then Whelk. You are such an huge expert on everything. Perhaps you would like to explain to us how the Russian/Ukraine war will end if not at the negotiating table.

Ukraine occupies Moscow and reinstates the medieval empire of the Kyivan Rus.

Edited July 27 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Ukraine occupies Moscow and reinstates the medieval empire of the Kyivan Rus.

 Nice thought. 

What Whelk fails to grasp, and I appreciate that he may well be being obtuse, is that, even if a side is forced to the negotiating table, talks still need to be held and conditions of a ceasefire/surrender agreed. In WW1 we had the Versailles Treaty (not a great treaty as it sowed the seeds of WW2) and the Paris Peace Treaties formally ended WW2 with the signing in 1947. 
Wars don’t just stop. There are all kinds of terms and conditions that need to be put into place with plenty of diplomatic activity between both sides.

If Trump becomes POTUS I’m sure he will put pressure on Zelensky to come to terms with Putin, cede land and probably give up on the idea of NATO membership. If he stops military aid to Ukraine, or threatens to, they might not be given much choice but to give Putin much of what he wants in order to bring an end to hostilities.

[Weston Super Saint]

30 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Ukraine occupies Moscow and reinstates the medieval empire of the Kyivan Rus.

Call it a draw and have a shootout?

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Paris Peace Treaties formally ended WW2 with the signing in 1947.

That was in no way any kind of negotiated settlement. Germany lost because they were getting spit roasted on the battlefield by the Soviets in the East and everyone else in the west. They surrendered and if they hadn’t, the war would have been over in days with thousands more needless casualties.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Why would I be desperate  to hold peace talks with Hitler?

Because you think everyone can be negotiated with to bring compromise, including ISIS who enjoy beheading charity workers.

 

[badgerx16]

The Paris treaties did not end WW2, the articles of surrender signed in May 1945 by Germany and August 1945 by Japan did so.

The Paris treaties related to the post-war status of the minor Axis powers who had defected and switched to the Allied side between the middle of 1943 and early 1945; Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland had all ended up on the winning side, but had to pay a price for at some point joining the wrong alliance and in particular fighting the Russians.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

And you are a miserable, old curmudgeon who spends his days looking for people to abuse online. So where does that leave us?

That’s unfair SOG, it’s not everyone

[whelk]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

The Paris treaties did not end WW2, the articles of surrender signed in May 1945 by Germany and August 1945 by Japan did so.

The Paris treaties related to the post-war status of the minor Axis powers who had defected and switched to the Allied side between the middle of 1943 and early 1945; Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland had all ended up on the winning side, but had to pay a price for at some point joining the wrong alliance and in particular fighting the Russians.

He gets annoyed when I call him a simpleton but clearly has no natural grasp of situations. Puts in Google and then comes back as to enlighten people as to why WW2 ended by a treaty.

the atomic bombs were probably just incidental and Japan would have surrendered if we just didn’t use such aggression. I can cope with his naive view of the world it’s the piousness that grates.

[egg]

What happened in other conflicts is irrelevant. This will end in a negotiated settlement. If we get Trump, he fucks over Ukraine. That leaves Europe to tackle Russia alone, or back down. That ain't happening, but Ukraine ain't winning this, and the West won't sponsor this forever. . 

I've yet to hear anyone say how they see Ukraine winning this, or that they feel Russia will (or be allowed to). 

It'll compromise in a smaller Cyprus way. 

Only other comment is that curmudgeon is underused. 

 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Come on then Whelk. You are such an huge expert on everything.

Finally I can agree with you

[egg]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Finally I can agree with you

What about his main point...how does this end if not by negotiation? All the nonsense up there basically points to a war of attrition or WW3. 

Edited July 27 by egg

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

What about his main point...how does this end of not by negotiation? All the nonsense you there basically points to a war of attrition or WW3. 

Problem with you and SOG is that you obsess about ends without taking the aggressors behaviour into account. 
I don’t have a solution to some cunt who happily sacrifices thousands of his citizens to try and invade doesn’t have an obvious solution other than fight back. You don’t give in to these evil cunts- he thinks the west weak and he has been right. Sometimes your gas bill isn’t the most important thing.

do you see Hitler and Putin as different animals then?

[Lighthouse]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

What about his main point...how does this end if not by negotiation? All the nonsense up there basically points to a war of attrition or WW3. 

If it ends at all, by military defeat. Or there’s the indefinite stalemate we currently have in Korea.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Problem with you and SOG is that you obsess about ends without taking the aggressors behaviour into account. 
I don’t have a solution to some cunt who happily sacrifices thousands of his citizens to try and invade doesn’t have an obvious solution other than fight back. You don’t give in to these evil cunts- he thinks the west weak and he has been right. Sometimes your gas bill isn’t the most important thing.

do you see Hitler and Putin as different animals then?

There's always an end. Everyone wants a Ukraine victory, and Putin's downfall, I'm not sure anyone sees that as likely on the battlefield, and if the west won't risk a Russia victory, and nobody wants WW3. There ain't any option but settlement but I'm all ears to other alternatives that I'm missing.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

If it ends at all, by military defeat. Or there’s the indefinite stalemate we currently have in Korea.

The latter is a smaller Cyprus solution as I mentioned above. If that's not a negotiated settlement, what is it? If you agree with me and SoG, wtf is your point? 

[Lighthouse]

41 minutes ago, egg said:

The latter is a smaller Cyprus solution as I mentioned above. If that's not a negotiated settlement, what is it? If you agree with me and SoG, wtf is your point? 

I mentioned Korea specifically because they are technically still at war and there is a real military front line still active to this day. It’s just a stalemate that the Korean War slowly peaked out into. It was not a negotiated settlement, I’ve no idea why you think I agree with you and SOG.

You keep talking about agreements but there is nothing that both side would agree and stick to that could be negotiated.

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

 

You keep talking about agreements but there is nothing that both side would agree and stick to that could be negotiated.

Oh yes there would, if Ukraine were not funded by the USA.

Russia are not running out of munitions, are not running out of people, sanctions have not worked as desired and the West cannot afford to fund this indefinitely (certainly not Europe in any scenario)

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Oh yes there would, if Ukraine were not funded by the USA.

Russia are not running out of munitions, are not running out of people, sanctions have not worked as desired and the West cannot afford to fund this indefinitely (certainly not Europe in any scenario)

That’s lovely and all but that scenario would lead to a military defeat, not a negotiated settlement.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

That’s lovely and all but that scenario would lead to a military defeat, not a negotiated settlement.

There is always a negotiated settlement when the USA are not carpet bombing the place.

 

[Jimmy_D]

Russia would love everyone to believe they have effectively unlimited resources, but they really don’t.

They’re gutting their own economy to keep the war going, and it’s starting to hit the tipping point where that’s going to start having very real effects on their ability to wage war.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Russia would love everyone to believe they have effectively unlimited resources, but they really don’t.

They’re gutting their own economy to keep the war going, and it’s starting to hit the tipping point where that’s going to start having very real effects on their ability to wage war.

You previously felt they'd run out of resources. They haven't. Let's just assume you're wrong and they won't run out of resources (I have no idea if they will, but my suspicion is that they won't - India etc will carry on buying their oil), how does it end militarily? Russia won't concede, so do the west carry on (and up) the support to help a Ukrainian victory, or something else? I'm genuinely interested to understand how people feel that this can realistically end on the battlefield. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Russia would love everyone to believe they have effectively unlimited resources, but they really don’t.

They’re gutting their own economy to keep the war going, and it’s starting to hit the tipping point where that’s going to start having very real effects on their ability to wage war.

They were not running out of munitions 2 years ago (I think even you suggested they were), and they won’t be running out any time soon. However, if they are hampering their long term ability to wage war, then the mythical belief that if they beat Ukraine they will march across Europe will never happen.

From a UK PoV, we cannot sustain the ‘gifts’ we give to Ukraine. Militarily it is hurting us as we just do not have the political/fiscal power to replace it all at pace.

 

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, egg said:

The latter is a smaller Cyprus solution as I mentioned above. If that's not a negotiated settlement, what is it? If you agree with me and SoG, wtf is your point? 

It took 10 years for the Russians to realise they had lost in Afghanistan and just leave. Russia IS being gradually weakened, the vast stockpiles of Soviet arms are starting to run out and sanctions are having a cumulative effect. Eventually the people around Putin will calculate the 'gain' isnt worth the losses.    

[Jimmy_D]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They were not running out of munitions 2 years ago (I think even you suggested they were), and they won’t be running out any time soon. However, if they are hampering their long term ability to wage war, then the mythical belief that if they beat Ukraine they will march across Europe will never happen.

From a UK PoV, we cannot sustain the ‘gifts’ we give to Ukraine. Militarily it is hurting us as we just do not have the political/fiscal power to replace it all at pace.

 

So Russia still have access to the same level of resources they did two years ago then?

[egg]

5 minutes ago, buctootim said:

It took 10 years for the Russians to realise they had lost in Afghanistan and just leave. Russia IS being gradually weakened, the vast stockpiles of Soviet arms are starting to run out and sanctions are having a cumulative effect. Eventually the people around Putin will calculate the 'gain' isnt worth the losses.    

There's a lot of hope on there, and although I take the point re Afghanistan, this is altogether different and more important to Putin. I  think there's more chance of the west walking away form Ukraine (especially if we get Trump) than Putin walking away from it. I hope I'm wrong.