Jump to content

Kiev Is Burning


X-Files

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bojan said:

Nothingburger, if they wanted them really dead they would have killed them and told that they were "KIA".

Sure they didn't, nothing to gain from it, and a lot to loose. But it looks like they also gave the idea of using the whole affair to get UK to recognize DLPR a rest. After the statement like that, all those prisoners are good for is ransom/ POW exchange, which is what will happen to them probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    9024

  • Stuart Galbraith

    5161

  • glenn239

    2687

  • sunday

    1983

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We supposedly are going to raise our military budget to 2.5 percent of GDP. By 2030. Considering we were doing 3 percent only 12 years ago, its a pathetic. None of us are really taking the test seriously.

12 years ago is 2010. How do you think for how long will you be able to continue borrowing?

government-debt-uk.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I'm also concerned whether Poland might get some stupid ideas.

LOL, that is what I was alluding to in my post below. Our little brothers in Poland and the Baltics have been prone to lots of tough talk. That is primarily due to the bigger brothers behind them. The western capitals should have them tone down the rhetoric....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

I know, my fear is as war progress escalation almost seems certain. I am sure there are parties inside the kremlin that want to destroy Ukraine, whatever that means.

My thought would be that the Russians might still try and absorb Kharkov. My impulse would be to drive along the coast and landlock the country. 

From the Ukrainian point of view, I don't know where they go. You can argue they were successful in the north, but everywhere else else not so much. I still think the Ukrainian government's main objective is direct western intervention. That is the only way they can recover lost territory in significant amounts at this stage.

Most of the west is not interested in direct escalation at this point. Looking at the increasing sale of equipment, it comes at an odd time. It is almost an Iran-Iraq thing, they don't want either side to win. With all the tough talk of a free an independent Ukraine, neither side wants a strong country like that on its border. If the Ukrainians were to win outright, the far right in the country would want to keep needling the east. The Ukrainian government couldn't seem to rein in the far right before the latest escalation, I don't know how they would control them after a perceived victory. 

As the Ukrainians slowly lose, the west will  make good some material losses and provide verbal support to keep them fighting. I think the current goal in western capitals is to keep the Ukrainians supplied enough to keep them from collapsing.

The Russians seem to be okay with playing along and are happy with very incremental winning. I think that is dangerous, as the lack of dramatic action and the seemingly constant over the top western media playing to the Ukrainian side places popular pressure for the west to do more. Public perception would be that more intervention would be at little cost.

 

The problem with that assessment is that it is not really based on any measurable metric, unless you want to count the amount of ammunition expended. At the current rate of advance, it will take Russia approximately 30 years to conquer Ukraine. Unless RU is able to really speed things up, they will run out of steam at some point:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

The convenient thing about speaking out "truths" like this is that they are completely impossible to falsify. 🙃

I read your meltdown series of posts of a few days ago over the civilian deaths in the shopping mall attack, and it seemed fake to me.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Josh said:

What is your recommendation?

Let the Russians have the Ukraine, get cheap energy in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

LOL, that is what I was alluding to in my post below. Our little brothers in Poland and the Baltics have been prone to lots of tough talk. That is primarily due to the bigger brothers behind them. The western capitals should have them tone down the rhetoric....

 

You and some other westerners (by that I mean people without experience with "soviet bloc life") still expects that for showing restraint the other side will do the same. But that never worked in area east of Germany.

Edited by Pavel Novak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Josh said:

I fail to see how the current situation doesn’t qualify as a “major war”. Outside of nukes, what exactly have the Russians left off the table?

The three big ones that we're watching are the power generation, the rail network, and the switch from cautious tactics by the RuAF to tactics of total destruction of these targets, even at the loss of several hundred aircraft.   We are now increasingly watching a 4th, Russian mobilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We supposedly are going to raise our military budget to 2.5 percent of GDP. By 2030. Considering we were doing 3 percent only 12 years ago, its a pathetic. None of us are really taking the test seriously.

My impression is that the fighting class in Canada from WW2 - white males 18-30 - are more isolated and feel alienated than in the past - for various reasons outside the scope of this thread.  Immigrant populations do not care for white politicians telling them that wars against white countries are more important, and youth in general are less interested in this type thing and there is a general malaise towards work ethics in general.

Impression is that Canada has a sharp crust of superbly trained personnel, then after that, nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

 

As the Ukrainians slowly lose, the west will  make good some material losses and provide verbal support to keep them fighting. I think the current goal in western capitals is to keep the Ukrainians supplied enough to keep them from collapsing.

My concern on the Russian side is that Russian patience will very suddenly  snap, and that immediately thereafter the Russian war aim will be unconditional surrender.   I don't see the West's goal of perpetual war likely to lead elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

My concern on the Russian side is that Russian patience will very suddenly  snap, and that immediately thereafter the Russian war aim will be unconditional surrender.   I don't see the West's goal of perpetual war likely to lead elsewhere.

Russians started the war with goal on unconditional surrender level. They can only reduce their goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

12 years ago is 2010. How do you think for how long will you be able to continue borrowing?

government-debt-uk.jpg

 

You really have no idea how long it took Britain to pay off ww2, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 12:29 PM, Huba said:

I couldn't understand why they moved the heavy equipment there in the first place, it was unsustainable since the day Moskva sunk, or even before that.

To understand the motives of Russian Navy keeping the foot on this island, one should swith the perception of this war from "state vs. state" war into "Civil War in Russia" mode. Let me try to explain it.

What is the value of Snake island, if we leave propaganda value aside?

1) "To control marine traffic in the region" - false. Russian "big" shore-based anti-ship missiles are well capable to reach any target in this area from Crimea, and we do not have "small" shore  anti-ship missiles to place on this island anyway

post.cgi?id=attach:54:56552:1573:1

2) "To clear the way for landing operation to Odessa" - false, even if pro-Ukrainians move some anti-ship assets to this island - they will become practice targets for Rus AF and missiles, as island is tiny and lacks any natural cover

3) "To provide AC/AD over Odessa region" - false, no AD assets above self-defence systems were deployed there, and it is hardly possible due to above mentioned georgaphic limitations. Russian fighter aviatioin is much more suited for this role, especially if combined with Navy providing radar coverage.

So, as we see, there is hardly any real military value of this island (at least in situation when it is within easy reach even from bore artillery from mainland). So why Russian forces reoccupied it after failed (and costly) defeat of pro-Ukrainian landing attempt? Wasn't it more logical to continue destroying pro-Ukr landing attempts with fraction of the cost of maintaining own troops on this island? (note AA assrts were there only to make small forces on the island more or less protected from air attacks and MLRS).

Here comes "appeasement of the West" party. This people, who dream about reaching some kind of settlement with West and return to "business as usual" of serving as de-facto West agents in Russia, are in bad need for "barganing chips" in this negotiations that they could give up without Russian public having their heads. Snake island (or, to be correct, Russian forces presence on it), far away and almost unknown to wide public, but advertised as "key to Odessa" and part of grain trade affair, was very convenirnt as this barganing chip. That is why ground forces were pushed there. Remember sort of hysteric reaction from official Russian speakers about "provocations" when the forces were attacked? It was considered "provocation" by "appeasement of the West" party, as every Russian sailor killed defending this island was limiting their manuver to use this island in political bargain with West, since Russian public attitude.

   THe real question now is if Russian forces left the island for purely military reasons (and it means "War to victory" party won this set over "Appeasement of the West" party)  or it was part of political game that include Kaliningrad transit, NG trade and who knows what more .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us hope that the "war to victory party" won and their will be no compromise with the west, as this would be the death of Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

  NATO has become allied with Eastern European countries such as  Poland and now Ukraine that are eager to drag it forward into a more direct confrontation with Russia.  This is what 'entanglement' means.  Your excerpt contains one whopper, which goes to the heart of the problem.  You said, "unable to crush", when  the truth is "unwilling to crush".

The main driving force behind support for Ukraine is the United States. Not that Poland et al doesn't support Ukraine, but we probably wouldn't do shit without Washington's green light and leading by example, neither would Western Europe for that matter. Sure, the goal of the US and Eastern NATO members is the same - to crush Russian imperial ambitions, to reduce Russia to third rate power, that will no longer be a threat. Additionally, to reinforce the (remnants of) the still unipolar world. In the long run the West will be better off with: a) integrating Ukraine, b) denying Ukraine to the Russians. Russia is on the road to lose European energy market, I'd be overjoyed if they lose portions of it specifically to the United States, plus more nuclear power, renewables and the rest of the 'traditional' resources from countries that don't seek to overthrow the current international (Western) order. 

Sure, all of it requires some sacrifices, just like in the future showing the PRC its place will require some. It wouldn't be that bad if the West (with the US leading by example) didn't turn China into factory of the world in exchange for cheap labor driving the profits up, just like it wouldn't be that bad if Europe didn't choose a rogue state to be its major energy supplier. Now this is THE entanglement, the one that costs a lot to get out of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You really have no idea how long it took Britain to pay off ww2, do you?

Please let me remind you WWII cost you Empire. Do you have another Empire to sell? And note you are now discussing opposing to Russia, country repeatedly described as economic dwarf. What is your plan to oppose China?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roman Alymov said:

Please let me remind you WWII cost you Empire. Do you have another Empire to sell? And note you are now discussing opposing to Russia, country repeatedly described as economic dwarf. What is your plan to oppose China?

Sure, they could have saved their Empire, if they did I doubt that Russia (or Poland or a lot of other countries in Europe) would exist today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Sure, they could have saved their Empire, if they did I doubt that Russia (or Poland or a lot of other countries in Europe) would exist today. 

It is "alternative history" debate, so please excuse me for not going into it - as it is the field of fiction. I do not want to undermine the sacrifice of Britons in our joint victory in WWII. My point was different: Stuart's analogy with repaying WWII debt is fundamentally face, as starting points of British Empire of 1945 ("the empire on which the sun never sets") and UK of 2022 (relatively small island country on the brink of further division) are a little bit different. And wrong analogies leads to wrong conclusions.

Edited by Roman Alymov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roman Alymov said:

It is "alternative history" dabate, so please excuse me for not going into it - as it is the field of fiction. I do not want to undermine the sacrifice of Britons in our joint victory in WWII. My point was different: Stuart's analogy with repaying WWII debt is fundamentally face, as starting points of British Empire of 1945 ("the empire on which the sun never sets") and UK of 2022 (relatively small island country on the brink of further division) are a little bit different. And wrong analogies leads to wrong conclusions.

Well, the alternate history bit is rather predictable - no strategic bombing, no second front, no US involvement, no lend-lease, separatist peace with the Reich...

IIRC The UK was paying their WW1 debts well into XXI century, not sure about WW2 debts (still paying?). Majority of payments were done without an Empire, as a 'small island country'. They didn't piss and moan that they 'paid their debts with sacrifices of their soldiers', like Stalin, just did what they had to do. 

Today the UK might not have an empire, but they're closely allied with one, just like most of the important bits of their former empire are. 

As for the debt to GDP ratio the UK isn't doing that bad, it's a bit more than Germany or Poland has, but less than Italy, France or the United States. And faaar less than Japan, but their debt is mostly internal - still, seems pretty sustainable even with 250%, they're even expanding the military by a quite substantial margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huba said:

...But it looks like they also gave the idea of using the whole affair to get UK to recognize DLPR a rest...

At a risk of making WAG IMHO that was also not in intention.

Quote

 After the statement like that, all those prisoners are good for is ransom/ POW exchange, which is what will happen to them probably.

Prisoner exchanges were going on silently since day 1, almost every week or so. Thing is, Ukrainians have way less prisoners than Russians do, so those might have to wait a bit until they get to the point of being exchanged/released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cynik75 said:

It is partially true. And very imprortatn fact is involvement of a large part of the German armed forces in the fighting in the West.  

4 of 5 German deaths during the war happened on the Eastern Front.

At the end of the war, the Soviet Union had lost 27 million people. The Western allies lost less than 2 million.

Germany lost around 4 million troops in the Eastern Front. On the Western front it lost 1 million.

The Eastern Front went from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The total length of the front was around 3000 kilometers.

The German Army was decisively defeated in the Eastern Front, the opening of the Second front in Western Europe just accelerated its defeat.

The largest tank battle in the Western front, the Battle of Arracourt, involved less than 500 tanks. The largest tank battle in the Eastern Front, the battle of Kursk (which also is the largest tank battle in history), involved around 10.000 tanks.

In conclusion, yes, the Eastern front was 20 times larger than the Western front, perhaps even more.

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-eastern-front-in-WW2-really-20-times-larger-is-number-of-people-involved-than-the-Western-front?share=1

 

And this is only small comparison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Do you feel the same way about the amount of Russian tanks flying Soviet Flags?

Soviet simbols in no possible way can be compared with nazi. Just cant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Sure, they could have saved their Empire, if they did I doubt that Russia (or Poland or a lot of other countries in Europe) would exist today. 

Yep, and for all the chestbeating the pro-Russia crowd make about the loss of THEIR Empire, you see barely any regret here at the passing of ours. Well other than Boris johnson, and who cares what that fuckwit thinks. For an ostensibly Socialist Empire, compared to our deeply imperial one, this is a fascinating contrast. We grew up, and Russia didnt.

34 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Please let me remind you WWII cost you Empire. Do you have another Empire to sell? And note you are now discussing opposing to Russia, country repeatedly described as economic dwarf. What is your plan to oppose China?

No need. When Labour gets in, they will freeze all that stolen money in Russian oligarch bank accounts and put it in the MOD. After all, Russia makes a state policy of thieving money, so we can all do it, right? :) 

Console yourself with the thought that any further NLAWs to Ukraine, you might have paid for them.

 

26 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

It is "alternative history" debate, so please excuse me for not going into it - as it is the field of fiction. I do not want to undermine the sacrifice of Britons in our joint victory in WWII. My point was different: Stuart's analogy with repaying WWII debt is fundamentally face, as starting points of British Empire of 1945 ("the empire on which the sun never sets") and UK of 2022 (relatively small island country on the brink of further division) are a little bit different. And wrong analogies leads to wrong conclusions.

And my point went over your head. Debt works differently in  country part of the world's largest trading network, than it does in a country who list of friends are desperate and impoverished African states, China, which is buying up your country one forest or mine at a time  and Venezuela. You think China will finance your debts out of charity? Good luck with that.

Here is a side bet, I believe your country will split before mine will. I once would have been very deeply upset at the thought. Now I'm just counting the days till it happens. Most of Europe is I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Perun said:

Soviet simbols in no possible way can be compared with nazi. Just cant

Katyn Forest. 

katyn-forest.jpg&ehk=PNYEnfRPQoC3YQGxAxR

When the MVD captured forest brothers in Lithuania, they had a fun party trick of dangling them headfirst over an ants nest.And it wasn't to make them talk, no, they just strung them up and poked off and let them get stung to death. Personally I see no appreciable difference from the Dirlewanger Brigade.

Of course, opinions vary.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...