Russia

[AlexLaw76]

39 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. All this they're running dry talk is irritating. Ditto that Ukraine are winning. It must be bloody awful being a Ukrainian knowing that more missiles will come, more homes and lives will be lost, and that they'll be without electricity and water for god knows how long. 

Just to counter the news of the latest missile strike by Russia...another one of these;

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/putin-could-be-ousted-by-own-generals-says-former-head-of-british-army/413810

Edited 29 December, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Just to counter the news of the latest missile strike by Russia...another one of these;

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/putin-could-be-ousted-by-own-generals-says-former-head-of-british-army/413810

Questions for you;

How much territory has Russia gained in the last month ? ( Considering we are entering month 11 of the SMO )

Are they justified in carrying out the missile attacks ?

Edited 29 December, 2022 by badgerx16

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

large-scale missiles attack by Russia last night, despite running out of missiles many times over..

Their factories keep churning them out until no more parks, schools, shopping centres or hospitals to blow up.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Questions for you;

How much territory has Russia gained in the last month ? ( Considering we are entering month 11 of the SMO )

Are they justified in carrying out the missile attacks ?

1. No idea.  I do not know what their tactical and strategic goals really are.  I certainly won't take it as read from any UK media channels.

2. It's a military operation, so from their standpoint, probably. 

[skintsaint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

. No idea.  I do not know what their tactical and strategic goals really are.

To take Bakhmut at all costs. Can find that out from many media outlets not in the UK.

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

To take Bakhmut at all costs. Can find that out from many media outlets not in the UK.

Wagner get paid regardless, Russia's prison population is greatly reduced : win win

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

2. It's a military operation, so from their standpoint, probably. 

I want to know, from you as a human being, what your view is. Do you think 'weaponising winter' and directly targeting non-military targets is an acceptable tactical ploy ?

[egg]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Questions for you;

How much territory has Russia gained in the last month ? ( Considering we are entering month 11 of the SMO )

Are they justified in carrying out the missile attacks ?

Territory gain is one metric of war "success". If you're living in Lviv, Kherson or Odessa today, you don't give a shit who's in charge of some village in south eastern Ukraine. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I want to know, from you as a human being, what your view is. Do you think 'weaponising winter' and directly targeting non-military targets is an acceptable tactical ploy ?

we do it time and time again, so I have to say yes

[egg]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I want to know, from you as a human being, what your view is. Do you think 'weaponising winter' and directly targeting non-military targets is an acceptable tactical ploy ?

It's completely unacceptable, but it's a tactic that's easy for Russia to deploy, especially in winter. The reality is that Ukraine is being destroyed, it's people suffering, and I'd hazard a guess that morale amongst Ukrainian citizens and soldiers is dwindling. 

The al Jazeera news feed today makes grim reading.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2022/12/29/russia-ukraine-live-lavrov-rejects-zelenskyys-peace-formula

 

 

[badgerx16]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

Territory gain is one metric of war "success". If you're living in Lviv, Kherson or Odessa today, you don't give a shit who's in charge of some village in south eastern Ukraine. 

But you might well "give a shit" about being taken back into the Russian sphere.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But you might well "give a shit" about being taken back into the Russian sphere.

I suspect that thought doesn't cross their mind when it's minus 4 and they have no electricity or water. The western metric is not necessarily theirs. 

[badgerx16]

26 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

we do it time and time again, so I have to say yes

In which case, is it justified when we do it ? ( Not quite sure how often 'we' have tried to knock out an entire national power grid and freeze out a civilian population, other than perhaps NATO in Serbia ).

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

In which case, is it justified when we do it ? ( Not quite sure how often 'we' have tried to knock out an entire national power grid and freeze out a civilian population, other than perhaps NATO in Serbia ).

we just bomb entire cities into the stone age (not hard at all to look up the destruction we delivered to Iraq and Libya for example). In those situations, the incumbent PMs were re-elected, so yes, justified by the many and by law.

 

[Jimmy_D]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

we just bomb entire cities into the stone age (not hard at all to look up the destruction we delivered to Iraq and Libya for example). In those situations, the incumbent PMs were re-elected, so yes, justified by the many and by law.

 

Go on then. It's 'not hard at all to look up' so give some documented examples.

[Jimmy_D]

49 minutes ago, egg said:

Territory gain is one metric of war "success". If you're living in Lviv, Kherson or Odessa today, you don't give a shit who's in charge of some village in south eastern Ukraine. 

 

19 minutes ago, egg said:

I suspect that thought doesn't cross their mind when it's minus 4 and they have no electricity or water. The western metric is not necessarily theirs. 

So your train of thought here is what? Ukrainians are being terrorized by Russian missile attacks, so the solution is to assume that Ukrainians would be happier under Russian occupation?

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

 

So your train of thought here is what? Ukrainians are being terrorized by Russian missile attacks, so the solution is to assume that Ukrainians would be happier under Russian occupation?

No. The train of thought is that badger's metric of success (territory gain) will not be a metric that will cross the mind of a Ukrainian in Lviv or Kyiv (areas which will inevitably stay in Ukrainian control) without water or electricity in freezing temperatures. 

[Jimmy_D]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

No. The train of thought is that badger's metric of success (territory gain) will not be a metric that will cross the mind of a Ukrainian in Lviv or Kyiv (areas which will inevitably stay in Ukrainian control) without water or electricity in freezing temperatures. 

So do you think Russia's metric of success is 'how many Ukrainians can we leave without heat or water?'

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

So do you think Russia's metric of success is 'how many Ukrainians can we leave without heat or water?'

It's a battle on various fronts. Part of that is absolutely about grinding down the Ukrainian people. No sense having battlefield scraps in a cold winter when you can smash a country up, and the morale of its people. 

 

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

No. The train of thought is that badger's metric of success (territory gain) will not be a metric that will cross the mind of a Ukrainian in Lviv or Kyiv (areas which will inevitably stay in Ukrainian control) without water or electricity in freezing temperatures. 

Not my metric of success, it was a dig at Alexei's earlier posts on this thread.

I suspect that at some point a compromise will have to be sought as the conflict stagnates with neither side having the effective manpower to achieve their espoused aims. Russia has no chance of retaining the 4 recently 'annexed' regions, particularly as they don't actually control 100% of any of them, and without much greater support from the West it is unlikely that Ukraine will find the capacity to recover the 2014 borders by force of arms.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It's a battle on various fronts. Part of that is absolutely about grinding down the Ukrainian people. No sense having battlefield scraps in a cold winter when you can smash a country up, and the morale of its people. 

 

When was the last war that was won by terror bombing ? The history of the last 120 years has many examples of attempts to cow civilians by bombing, not even the allied WW2 campaigns by the RAF and USAAF acheived that, despite destroying every area of habitation in Germany with a population over 10 thousand.

Edited 29 December, 2022 by badgerx16

[egg]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

When was the last war that was won by terror bombing ?

We did ok in Iraq. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Not my metric of success, it was a dig at Alexei's earlier posts on this thread.

I suspect that at some point a compromise will have to be sought as the conflict stagnates with neither side having the effective manpower to achieve their espoused aims. Russia has no chance of retaining the 4 recently 'annexed' regions, particularly as they don't actually control 100% of any of them, and without much greater support from the West it is unlikely that Ukraine will find the capacity to recover the 2014 borders by force of arms.

The issue is where there can be compromise. Crimea seems a given, but Russia will need Ukraine to cede more to come to the table. A ruler and a pencil are needed, but there needs to be a willingness to give and take which I don't sense is there at the mo. 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

We did ok in Iraq. 

We did not "terror bomb" Iraq.

[egg]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

We did not "terror bomb" Iraq.

Matter of opinion mate. We smashed it up because we felt justified in doing so. 

[Jimmy_D]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The issue is where there can be compromise. Crimea seems a given, but Russia will need Ukraine to cede more to come to the table. A ruler and a pencil are needed, but there needs to be a willingness to give and take which I don't sense is there at the mo. 

Ukraine don't feel like they need to compromise. It's almost like Russia isn't winning on any front.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

The issue is where there can be compromise. Crimea seems a given, but Russia will need Ukraine to cede more to come to the table. A ruler and a pencil are needed, but there needs to be a willingness to give and take which I don't sense is there at the mo. 

One issue with a compromise is that ceding anything to Russia means they have won.

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, egg said:

Matter of opinion mate. We smashed it up because we felt justified in doing so. 

Care to provide documented examples of that?

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Care to provide documented examples of that?

Really?? I won't waste my time mate. 

[Jimmy_D]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Really?? I won't waste my time mate. 

You're the one making false claims of Western armies targeting civilians.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

One issue with a compromise is that ceding anything to Russia means they have won.

Compromise never involves one side backing down completely. One absolute certainty is that the war will continue if Russia and Ukraine both insist on getting the 4 annexed areas plus Crimea. Whilst Ukraine shouldn't have to give an inch (literally) the reality is that something has to give on both sides - that's the nature of the beast. 

[Jimmy_D]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Compromise never involves one side backing down completely. One absolute certainty is that the war will continue if Russia and Ukraine both insist on getting the 4 annexed areas plus Crimea. Whilst Ukraine shouldn't have to give an inch (literally) the reality is that something has to give on both sides - that's the nature of the beast. 

Yeah, that one concentration camp we left standing for the Nazis was a shame, but...

[egg]

Just now, Jimmy_D said:

You're the one making false claims of Western armies targeting civilians.

The whole war was unjustified western interference based largely on wmd bullshit. Civilians died in it, and the fall out was/is immense. It's a discussion I cba to get into though cos I can see that we'll be going around in circles. 

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

The whole war was unjustified western interference based largely on wmd bullshit. Civilians died in it, and the fall out was/is immense. It's a discussion I cba to get into though cos I can see that we'll be going around in circles. 

I agree that the justification for that war was thin, verging on being a war crime and possibly crossing that line. As in all wars civilians ended up being victims of collateral damage.

Claims of civilians being targeted as a tactic, though, are very very far from the mark. That's the difference in what Russia are doing, and they're doing it during an invasion based on pretext with even less going for it.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, egg said:

The whole war was unjustified western interference based largely on wmd bullshit. Civilians died in it, and the fall out was/is immense. It's a discussion I cba to get into though cos I can see that we'll be going around in circles. 

Tony Blair should have been prosecuted for the Iraq war but the idea that civilians were targeted is bollocks. Many were killed and suffered immensely but if our forces had targeted civilians intentionally it would have looked very different, we could have turned the whole of Baghdad to rubble.

[AlexLaw76]

23 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Tony Blair should have been prosecuted for the Iraq war but the idea that civilians were targeted is bollocks. Many were killed and suffered immensely but if our forces had targeted civilians intentionally it would have looked very different, we could have turned the whole of Baghdad to rubble.

About 70% of Fullujah was destroyed, nearly 500k become refugees, with many many thousands of civilians killed, partly with white Phosphorus munitions...

Delivering democracy / War is an ugly business

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_United_States_government_forces

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/23/2380-for-a-life-uk-forces-linked-to-nearly-300-afghan-civilian-deaths

Edited 29 December, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[aintforever]

25 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

About 70% of Fullujah was destroyed, nearly 500k become refugees, with many many thousands of civilians killed, partly with white Phosphorus munitions...

Delivering democracy / War is an ugly business

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_United_States_government_forces

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/23/2380-for-a-life-uk-forces-linked-to-nearly-300-afghan-civilian-deaths

I agree, war is always an ugly business. But I still believe we aimed to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. If we wanted to actually target civilians in Iraq we would have killed a lot more, we had complete air superiority and could have carpet bombed the whole place at will.

 

[egg]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

About 70% of Fullujah was destroyed, nearly 500k become refugees, with many many thousands of civilians killed, partly with white Phosphorus munitions...

Delivering democracy / War is an ugly business

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_United_States_government_forces

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/23/2380-for-a-life-uk-forces-linked-to-nearly-300-afghan-civilian-deaths

Indeed. We do it - all cool. Others do it - barbaric. 

[Lighthouse]

7 hours ago, egg said:

Yep. All this they're running dry talk is irritating. Ditto that Ukraine are winning. It must be bloody awful being a Ukrainian knowing that more missiles will come, more homes and lives will be lost, and that they'll be without electricity and water for god knows how long. 

One of my friends is a fairly regular instagrammer and every time I read something like this I go and have a quick peak at what she’s up to. This morning was a manicure and half an hour ago she was having what looked like a Maui Thai with her friend in a bar (the lights were on BTW) Unbearable stuff obviously.

As for the missiles, the argument has always been that they’re running out of precision missiles, not just ammo in general. Any idiot can aim mortars and artillery at a target the size of Kherson or a power station. Firing ‘dumb’ munitions into car parks, playgrounds and shopping centres serves no other purpose than being a d*ck head for the sake of it and putting on a show of faux-masculinity.

[egg]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

One issue with a compromise is that ceding anything to Russia means they have won.

You've mooted compromise, but seemingly say that the Ukrainians can't compromise. Something has to give. 

[Weston Super Saint]

20 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

One of my friends is a fairly regular instagrammer and every time I read something like this I go and have a quick peak at what she’s up to. This morning was a manicure and half an hour ago she was having what looked like a Maui Thai with her friend in a bar (the lights were on BTW) Unbearable stuff obviously.

This is completely irrelevant - unless your friend lives in Ukraine which you seem to have omitted....

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

This is completely irrelevant - unless your friend lives in Ukraine which you seem to have omitted....

I thought that was fairly obvious, in response to a post about how unbearable life is for the average Ukrainian but for the avoidance of doubt, yes she does.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

You've mooted compromise, but seemingly say that the Ukrainians can't compromise. Something has to give. 

As things stand they can't. It would confer a degree of justification to Putin.

What I said is that compromise might become necessary if the war stagnates into a frozen conflict, but that seems far off at present. Perhaps Ukrainian attitudes will change if they reach the conclusion that regaining the 2014 borders is unachievable, but that choice is theirs alone, and at present they at least give the public facade of thinking they can manage to do it.

[whelk]

Egg and Batman in the blitz in 1940 “FFS no football and it’s always dark, don’t know why we didn’t just give him Poland?”

Edited 29 December, 2022 by whelk

[Lighthouse]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

As things stand they can't. It would confer a degree of justification to Putin.

What I said is that compromise might become necessary if the war stagnates into a frozen conflict, but that seems far off at present. Perhaps Ukrainian attitudes will change if they reach the conclusion that regaining the 2014 borders is unachievable, but that choice is theirs alone, and at present they at least give the public facade of thinking they can manage to do it.

Both sides talk publicly about being open to negotiations, in order to appear reasonable and open minded in the eyes of the rest of the world. In reality neither side really has much to give and will never settle for anything close to what the other side wants.

Putin is desperate to save face and rather than making concessions will need far more than he already has o portray as any kind of victory.

Ukraine will not sign over any of their territory and nor should they. Even if they, it’d just provide Russia with a respite to rearm and reorganise for another offensive in a few years, much like they did after the 2014 invasion.

If I were Zelenskiy, I’d make a sarcastic promise to Russia. Leave Ukraine and we’ll  hand over all individuals Russia believes are Nazis to The Hague.

[badgerx16]

Ukraine claim to have shot down all of the cruise missiles that were part of today's attack.

Meanwhile, Russia shoots down one of it's own Sukhoi fighter-bombers as air defence at the Engels airbase confuse it for a Ukrainian drone.

Edited 29 December, 2022 by badgerx16

[egg]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

Egg and Batman in the blitz in 1940 “FFS no football and it’s always dark, don’t know why we didn’t just give him Poland?”

Ha!! How do you see it ending Whelk? No compromise and leave them to slug it (with Western support for Ukraine) until the bitter end? Or something else? 

[egg]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

As things stand they can't. It would confer a degree of justification to Putin.

What I said is that compromise might become necessary if the war stagnates into a frozen conflict, but that seems far off at present. Perhaps Ukrainian attitudes will change if they reach the conclusion that regaining the 2014 borders is unachievable, but that choice is theirs alone, and at present they at least give the public facade of thinking they can manage to do it.

The issue the west has is that it barely batted an eyelid after Crimea - carry on regardless on oil and gas, let's enjoy your world cup, etc. Russia will see Crimea as a given, Ukraine obviously won't, and the west either need to row backwards or throw Ukraine under the bus on it. No easy solution, but the west will run out of appetite to support Ukraine militarily at some point. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

The issue the west has is that it barely batted an eyelid after Crimea - carry on regardless on oil and gas, let's enjoy your world cup, etc. Russia will see Crimea as a given, Ukraine obviously won't, and the west either need to row backwards or throw Ukraine under the bus on it. No easy solution, but the west will run out of appetite to support Ukraine militarily at some point. 

It all hangs on the USA, forget the rest of us.  If / when the USA have had enough, it is all over bar the shouting.

[egg]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It all hangs on the USA, forget the rest of us.  If / when the USA have had enough, it is all over bar the shouting.

Yep, and inevitably it'll happen. It's naive to think that the West/USA will fund this forever. Russia won't gain huge amounts of ground, and Ukraine won't push them back to pre 2014 borders. There can only be a diplomatic solution, and despite some saying that there shouldn't be compromise (morally I agree with the sentiment), the harsh reality is that there's no chance of peace without some.