The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Ranger25 · Feb 17, 2022

STURM said:
I fully understand that but does spinning the same narrative over and over again actually lead to.any tangible results or does it reveal weakness on the part of NATO? I'm pretty sure the Russians would have got the message at this stage. Ultimately, to move things forward requires compromises and trade off by both sides. I doubt if the Russians are going to back off because of the threat of sanctions or because of NATO battle groups deployed in the Baltics and Poland.

I could be sabre rattling which the Russians are good at at it it could be the prelude of an invasion. On thing's for sure, the Russians can't keep their troops forward deployed and at high readiness indefinitely.

Perhaps Putin has taken a page out of the DPRK playbook. Sabre rattling with the thoughts of NATO confessions.

Perhaps in regards to Aegis Ashore in Romania and Poland or against Future US MRBM systems. The US Army is working on several (close to being ready) longer range systems well beyond the previous ranges of 350KM. Systems from 500-1000KM are in the later stages of development.

STURM · Feb 17, 2022

Ranger25 said:
Perhaps Putin has taken a page out of the DPRK playbook. Sabre rattling with the thoughts of NATO confessions.

I think sabre rattling in parallel with other actions; intended to deliver the intended political results or create the conditions where an opponent would be willing to compromise or make concessions is something the Russians have long been doing and have experience of. Putin I'm sure fully understands NATO and how far he can push things to get the desired effect.

Vivendi · Feb 17, 2022

STURM said:
But would not solve anything. As the cliche goes; some are more equal than others; Russia's demands can't be totally ignored; it's still a major power and one which has a large nuclear arsenal. As much as NATO would wish for a more 'cooperative' or 'docile' Russia; isn't going to happen anytime soon. As for demanding a return of the Crimea; great in principle but dicey in reality.

Not sure what you mean by "Russia's demands can't be totally ignored"; I suggested Ukraine should offer to stay outside of NATO, this was actually one of the key demands Russia have.

Why would return of Crimea be off the table? If Russia could get guarantees from Ukraine that Ukraine would not join NATO, they should be willing to return Crimea, of course also with a guarantee that they can keep their base there.

It would also be a huge mistake to assume that a future more democratic Russia would be more cooperative and ready to dance to the West's tune; it could be even more assertive than a Russia under Putin.

Not sure what you mean by "ready to dance to the West's tune". Europe and the US are willing to enter a dialog, and find agreements with Russia that can reduce the tensions. European countries in particular are extremely interested in reducing not increasing their defense spending, and return to "business as usual". They did reduce the defense spending after the cold war when Russia was not considered a threat. If Russia is willing to enter agreements that can convince Europe that they are not a threat then Europe will agree to remove troops from Eastern Europe, enter into missile agreements, etc. etc. The NATO buildup we see now is a reaction to Russian escalations and Russian threatening behavior, not the other way around.

Fair enough but the problem with U.S. and Brit intel is that since Iraq; there is quite a lot of public scepticism about how accurate they are. Granted they could not provide more details to protect their sources but ultimately we have no idea as to how credible/accurate they really are. I'm not suggesting that NATO was indulging in misinformation as part of a wider plan to deter Russia [maybe it was?]; merely questioning how accurate/credible the intel was. Also it could have also been intended for a Western audience and not necessarily for Putin.

Head of NATO has confirmed the that intelligence is made public to deter Russia from attacking. He represents all NATO countries not just the US and the UK, thus he is more credible than either US or UK official statements. He would not stay in the job for long if a several NATO countries decided that he did not do a good job. On the contrary NATO has prolonged his contract in the past, and asked him to prolong even further, demonstrating that in overall, NATO countries are very happy with what he is doing.

Another general note; you highlight the divisions within NATO. Keep in mind though that when Russia tried to exploit this by sending letters to several European countries (including non-NATO countries like Finland and Sweden) demanding that each country provide a separate response to Russia's demands. Europe refused to play ball, and sent back one united response to Russia, demonstrating European unity and cohesion. Of course different countries have different opinions. But faced with the current threat from Russia, they decided to speak with one voice. Another aspect of "different countries have different opinions" is that this is a strength not just a weakness. NATO and EU are both organizations of (mainly) democratic countries, and this is also reflected in how both organizations are organized and how they work. Having different perspectives and different opinions are strengths of a democracy, not just a weakness, as Russia, China (and you?) seem to believe.

Maybe but I could play devil's advocate and say that if indeed Russia had made a decision to ultimately invade; it would still have done so even if a false flag operation had been exposed. One plan was no longer feasible so they switched to another plan.

These are just speculations, we do not know. It may well be that the decision to invade has not been made yet. However, if this is the case. the implication is that a decision to not invade has also not been made.

Feanor · Feb 17, 2022

Vivendi said:
Not sure what you mean by "Russia's demands can't be totally ignored"; I suggested Ukraine should offer to stay outside of NATO, this was actually one of the key demands Russia have.

Why would return of Crimea be off the table? If Russia could get guarantees from Ukraine that Ukraine would not join NATO, they should be willing to return Crimea, of course also with a guarantee that they can keep their base there.

Russian annexed Crimea outright, invested tens of billions into local infrastructure, and handed out passports. Russia has repeatedly stated that returning Crimea isn't up for discussion. There's no way Putin can return Crimea with massively losing face and likely triggering a major internal crisis. It also leaves open the question of whether the population of Crimea would want to be returned to Ukraine (not likely). Even selling Donbass downriver would be regarded as a problematic move at best, and be widely seen, domestically, as a major defeat.

Not sure what you mean by "ready to dance to the West's tune". Europe and the US are willing to enter a dialog, and find agreements with Russia that can reduce the tensions. European countries in particular are extremely interested in reducing not increasing their defense spending, and return to "business as usual". They did reduce the defense spending after the cold war when Russia was not considered a threat. If Russia is willing to enter agreements that can convince Europe that they are not a threat then Europe will agree to remove troops from Eastern Europe, enter into missile agreements, etc. etc. The NATO buildup we see now is a reaction to Russian escalations and Russian threatening behavior, not the other way around.

Russia's problem is not only, and not so much, the NATO buildup as it is NATO expansion.

These are just speculations, we do not know. It may well be that the decision to invade has not been made yet. However, if this is the case. the implication is that a decision to not invade has also not been made.

It's possible that there never was any intent to invade. Unfortunately it's really not clear at this point.

STURM · Feb 17, 2022

Vivendi said:
Not sure what you mean by "Russia's demands can't be totally ignored"

It's self explanatory.Russia is too significant to to be ignored. NATO can reject some of its demands but not all of them. That is three-point of diplomacy as you very well know. Both sides having to make the needed compromises and trade offs to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement.

Vivendi said:
Why would return of Crimea be off the table?

You axtually believe that after everything which has happened, that Putin would willingly give it up? It's a preposterous as suggesting that Russia actually believea that NATO would be willing to withdraw from eastern Europe or that NATO should consider it..

Vivendi said:
The NATO buildup we see now is a reaction to Russian escalations and Russian threatening behavior, not the other way around.

So you say but what's happening now didn't happen in a vacuum did it? The Russians don't exactly see or perceive things they way you have. If they did things wouldn't have gotten to where they are now.

Head of NATO has confirmed the that intelligence is made public to deter Russia from attacking[/QUOTE]

Great and kudos to the esteemed gentleman but has it actually led to the desired result? As stated previously if Russia,was keen on invading it wouldn't careless if a supposed false flag had been exposed because it could still go ahead with an invasion using an existing or other pretext.

Vivendi said:
Having different perspectives and different opinions are strengths of a democracy, not just a weakness, as Russia, China (and you?) seem to believe

I'm quite familiar with the basic concepts or tenets of democracy and my reference to certain weakness on the part of NATO was due to a host of other factors, which I laid out in previous posts.

Vivendi said:
These are just speculations

Quite a lot of what we write/say is based on speculations, based on what we know, what we think we know, how we perceive things and how it fits in our narrative ...

What is not speculation is the fact that it's a two way street, agree or not Russia is acting in a way it has to in order to safeguard its interests against what it perceives has been long standing U.S. led NATO policy to progressively expand closer and closer to its borders.

Vivendi · Feb 17, 2022

STURM said:
It's self explanatory.Russia is too significant to to be ignored. NATO can reject some of its demands but not all of them.

You deleted the part where I wrote that my suggestion was that Ukraine should accept to not join NATO. This was one of the key demands from Russia. By meeting this key demand I don't understand why you say that "Russia's demands can't be totally ignored". Fully meeting one of Russia's key demands does not reconcile with the statement of "totally ignoring Russia's demands".

STURM · Feb 17, 2022

Vivendi said:
You deleted the part where I wrote that my suggestion was that Ukraine should accept to not join NATO..

Faie enough so here's me acknowledging it..

Ultimately its up to NATO and the Ukraine. To me a far more possible or plausible arrangement would be.for the Ukraine to continue to be a Western friendly country but one which is non aligned or even possibly even neutral. Perhaps this would be acceptable to Russia, assuming of course it was acceptable to the Ukraine.

Vivendi said:
meeting this key demand I don't understand why you say that "Russia's demands can't be totally ignored"

Again, the whole concept of diplomacy [as you very well know] is centered on the premise that both sides are willing to make certain compromises or concessions in order to reach a,mutually beneficial agreement.

NATO initially dismissed all of Russia's demands. I'm stating a,fact, not who's right or wrong or who is being unreasonable.

Vivendi · Feb 17, 2022

STURM said:
NATO initially dismissed all of Russia's demands. I'm stating a,fact, not who's right or wrong or who is being unreasonable.

OK, so we were just talking past each other. You misunderstood what I said, and I consequently misunderstood what you were trying to say.

denix56 · Feb 17, 2022

«Загроза була, є і буде». РФ сконцентрувала неподалік України 130 тисяч військових — секретар оборонного комітету

Секретар Комітету Верховної Ради з питань національної безпеки, оборони та розвідки Роман Костенко повідомив, що Росія сконцентрувала неподалік українських кордонів 130 тисяч військових, але цілих бригад, готових до війни, у них немає.

nv.ua

The Ukrainian Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security has told, that he sees at most 130k Russians including the LDNR guys. He also told that Russia (as well as Ukraine) has problems in its battle groups, as most of them are not battle-ready, forcing Russia to combine multiple battle-ready units to form battle-ready groups leaving the rest as the background.

While I am suspicious on what my government says, it does not look like completely unreal, as organisation and readiness was/ is a big issue in all post-Soviet countries, as armies were oriented mainly to be able to show neighbors that they are powerful and numerous, not to perform some successful real large-scale operations.

swerve · Feb 17, 2022

STURM said:
Again, the whole concept of diplomacy [as you very well know] is centered on the premise that both sides are willing to make certain compromises or concessions in order to reach a,mutually beneficial agreement.

Yes, but sometimes one party makes completely unreasonable demands & there's no scope for compromise. See Argentina & the Falklands, where they insist that the UK accepts certain conditions before negotiating on anything else, & those conditions are the ones the UK considers non-negotiable, such as the Falkland Islanders being excluded from the negotiations.

Feanor · Feb 18, 2022

Update.

Belarus.

United Resolve 2022 continues. One of the highlights is the formation of a joint missile unit, including Belorussian Polonez systems and Russian Iskanders.

The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member