News Forum - UKRAINE UPDATES

[KRLMRX]

6 hours ago, oldschooler said:

West never threatened world destruction like Soviets. No Equivalence at all. 

any evidence that the Soviets threatened to destroy the world?

[joseph]

Stalin starved 3-5 million by official Russian accounts maybe 5 is accurate. Not 20-30 million. The "Holodomor". Stalin replaced Ukraine’s small farms with state-run collectives. So much for Communism. 

[KRLMRX]

5 hours ago, EdwardV said:

That’s absurd on so many levels. Prior to placing troops in the mountains it was Georgians occupying the land. People who would be hostile to Russians occupying to land. Afterward it’s Russians. That very fact alone makes a huge difference. While there might not be a lot of troops occupying the defensive positions now, they could easily be reinforced quickly long before actually being needed. The high ground is alway preferred in defense, before Russia didn’t have it, now they do. “Almost no effect” - wow. 

after the civil war in Georgia, only Abkhazians remained in Abkhazia, only Ossetians in South Ossetia, no Georgians for 30 years already. These regions occupy a very small part of Georgia and only in them are Russian troops.  Most of the mountains are not in these areas, but in Georgia.  

Stop reading BBC before bed.

[EdwardV]

34 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

after the civil war in Georgia, only Abkhazians remained in Abkhazia, only Ossetians in South Ossetia, no Georgians for 30 years already. These regions occupy a very small part of Georgia and only in them are Russian troops.  Most of the mountains are not in these areas, but in Georgia.  

Stop reading BBC before bed.

Besides the fact they are Abkhazians, Ossetians or something else, there were no Russian troops before and now there are. You know the actual point. As for geography, the Greater Caucasus mountain range runs along the northern border of Abkhazia with spurs running into the country. South Ossetia is almost completely in the Greater Caucasus. 

Regardless, the topic at hand is Ukraine. Holding it along with troops in Belarus, you block access through the Northern European plain into Russia. The historical invasion route for continental European enemies. It's not as good as holding the Polish Gap, but that's a future topic.  

RT News ... right back at you. 

[KRLMRX]

5 hours ago, Smithydog said:

Easy for Russia to get a net increase from Ukraine. Putin simply annexes part of the territory, in this case Crimea and gives them all Russian citizenship!

What next, a claim of 30 million plus increase when he does the same with Ukraine? Numbers often only tell part of a story. Sometimes, you have to look behind the number and see the real reasons. For example, what we are seeing right now:

Current increase for European Countries and UK - the by-product of a humanitarian crisis due to illegal Russian aggression.

Likely increase for Russia - the takeover of an independent country and their states based on false claims .

Somewhat a difference in my opinion. 

According to the link I provided, the vast majority of migrants in Russia are not Ukrainians.

If Crimea is annexed and its inhabitants were forcibly given Russian citizenship, why is there no guerrilla war?

[KRLMRX]

5 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Its now begging China for weapons because its running out.

good weed.  but don't abuse it.

[KRLMRX]

1 hour ago, EdwardV said:

Besides the fact they are Abkhazians, Ossetians or something else, there were no Russian troops before and now there are. You know the actual point. As for geography, the Greater Caucasus mountain range runs along the northern border of Abkhazia with spurs running into the country. South Ossetia is almost completely in the Greater Caucasus. 

Regardless, the topic at hand is Ukraine. Holding it along with troops in Belarus, you block access through the Northern European plain into Russia. The historical invasion route for continental European enemies. It's not as good as holding the Polish Gap, but that's a future topic.  

RT News ... right back at you. 

well, Russia sent troops to Abkhazia and Ossetia because there are mountains, and not because Georgia repeatedly tried to arrange ethnic cleansing there.

that's what Putin is talking about-neutral Ukraine. Perhaps he wants to capture her, but does not openly talk about it.

Edited March 14, 2022 by KRLMRX

[EdwardV]

36 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

well, Russia sent troops to Abkhazia and Ossetia because there are mountains, and not because Georgia repeatedly tried to arrange ethnic cleansing there.

that's what Putin is talking about-neutral Ukraine. Perhaps he wants to capture her, but does not openly talk about it.

So Georgia tried to arrange ethnic cleansing of themselves? Seems they did a good job of it. After all, no one would ever think Russia was behind the Georgians being ethnically cleansed from an area they wished to occupy. 

I'd argue Putin is talking about reintegration of Ukraine into Russia: 

 

He argued that Ukraine was a creation of the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin, its first leader, despite extensive evidence of a distinctive Ukrainian culture before that. Putin also made a claim that Ukraine was a part of Russia's historic territory. He said in his speech: "Let me emphasize once again that Ukraine for us is not just a neighboring country. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space. "These are our comrades, relatives, among whom are not only colleagues, friends, former colleagues, but also relatives, people connected with us by blood, family ties."

Putin Denies Reviving Russian Empire, Says Ukraine Not Real Country (businessinsider.com)

That doesn't sound like someone wanting a neutral country between Russia and NATO. It would also be pretty hard to create a neutral Ukraine after killing hundreds of thousands of it's citizens and turning it's cities into dust. That's not the way to create the necessary warm and fuzzy friendship between two nations. At least not without keeping your boot on their neck through the stationing of troops on the land (which in and of itself would argue against the whole "neutral" status thing). 

 

[Tim_Melb]

7 hours ago, vlad said:

I wouldn't call the javelin anti-air missile an out-of-date piece of kit or a stinger there both laser guided and deadly in the right hands as this Russian Helicopter found out, shot from a handheld javelin.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can take out a hypersonic cruise or even better an icbm war head cluster dropping in from orbit after being launched from a mobile launcher somewhere in Siberia with anti aircraft missiles. LOL

[Tim_Melb]

9 hours ago, Dedinbed said:

Drama queen .. if Vlad the short feels he has no choice but to use them it will be strategic battlefield lower yield weapons in the escalate to de-escalate scenario in the belief that the west will not up the ante and retaliate beyond that .. 

Russia does not have full air superiority with aircraft as Ukraine's air defences have proven to the point where some airstrikes carried out by Russian aircraft are being launched from Russian airspace for protection .. as has been well documented lately the number of portable SAM systems provided by the west has made the skies above Ukraine a dangerous place to be for Russian planes and helicopters .. 

Why wouldn't you want a lightning war .. the quicker you achieve the objectives the less likely you are to get bogged down .. so getting it over as quickly as possible was always the Russian goal .. and how it played out in the first days supports that with advances into territory with little combined arms support in the hope they carried sufficient resources to overcome any resistance .. but they didn't which as why a lot of those force recon' groups were cut to pieces by the Ukrainian defence as they pushed forward into their territory .. the tactics now have reverted to destroying towns and cities with artillery , rocket and missile fire some of which are up to date munitions along with other hardware including the T90 MBT .. this is after all an opportunity for Russia to demonstrate its armed forces prowess .. No the longer this continues the more likely it will become a war of attrition where tactics seen in Iraq and Afghanistan will be employed whereby the Russian's will try to exert control over built up area's but will have little chance of doing the same with the countryside as highway and road movement will become extremely hazardous from IED's and movement by air will be equally perilous from SAM's .. Russia has tasted once before what is likely to come with their occupation of Afghanistan in the 80's which ultimately lead to them leaving not very gloriously leading to the old USSR as it was then breaking apart not long afterwards .. 

Russia clearly was not trying for a lightning war the only airborne landings they made were to take out Ukrainian airfields and aircraft etc. in combination with state of the art missile strikes, which were a complete success which is why Ukraine has been begging for aircraft since the first day you don't ask for 70 aircraft (which is probably how many they lost in the first few hours) if you don't have the pilots to fly them. The major columns in the north did not even start entering the country until a couple of days in. It's very clearly that they never planned fora lightning war. Their special forces having taken out their initial targets then got chewed up by the Ukranian army (no doubt at heavy cost) trying to enter Kiev probably seeing if they could take out the President and government as a roll of the dice. May as well try to take out the government in a suicide mission than to sit around and wait for the Ukranian army to turn up and take you out. As for Ukrainian insurgency after the Russians win of course they will be expecting that but that is clearly a price they are willing to pay and no doubt having Installed a puppet government they hope in time it will diminish. 

[Tim_Melb]

10 hours ago, Dedinbed said:

Drama queen .. if Vlad the short feels he has no choice but to use them it will be strategic battlefield lower yield weapons in the escalate to de-escalate scenario in the belief that the west will not up the ante and retaliate beyond that .. 

If Putin decides to use nuclear weapons he will possibly start with low yield strikes in the Ukraine but it depends on the situation that triggers that step. If it is in response to NATO entering the conflict either in the air or by use of ground forces it's more likely he will make a full strike at NATO and its close allies across the planet. Because he will expect a NATO retaliatory strike inside Russian territory which would initiate a full strike anyway.. 

The best case scenario would be Russian strikes on NATO forces in the Ukraine and or along the Russian Ukraine border with no nuclear retaliation from NATO which is extremely unlikely. Any nuclear retaliation by NATO will result in 6000+ nuclear warheads (Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet) raining down across the globe. Leaving as I have already stated the Chinese to inherit a dying planet. 

[Tim_Melb]

10 hours ago, Dedinbed said:

Russia does not have full air superiority with aircraft

You clearly do not understand what the term air superiority means. SAM strikes and anti-aircraft are irrelevant. 

[EdwardV]

1 hour ago, Tim_Melb said:

If Putin decides to use nuclear weapons he will possibly start with low yield strikes in the Ukraine but it depends on the situation that triggers that step. If it is in response to NATO entering the conflict either in the air or by use of ground forces it's more likely he will make a full strike at NATO and its close allies across the planet. Because he will expect a NATO retaliatory strike inside Russian territory which would initiate a full strike anyway.. 

Why would he choose to do so? Outside of being nuts of course. There are no military targets worth the blowback in Ukraine. They are using mostly small units with little to no stockpiles of supplies nor critical transportation nodes. At least none that can’t be as  easily taken out with conventional weapons. You could blast Kyiv but in doing so you kill a million or so civilians. You don’t come back from that. Even if you want to think of it after a NATO entry into Ukraine it still doesn’t make sense. As long as NATO units don’t bunch together, the risk isn’t worth the reward. You kill a couple  of battalions but start a nuclear war? This while Russia territory isn’t actually threaten. To start a nuclear war is suicidal, something that’s not a trait of world leaders. 
 

I still contend it’s nothing more than a form of blackmail in order to shape the battlefield.

[Smithydog]

9 hours ago, KRLMRX said:

According to the link I provided, the vast majority of migrants in Russia are not Ukrainians.

If Crimea is annexed and its inhabitants were forcibly given Russian citizenship, why is there no guerrilla war?

I'll leave it to more qualified people to directly answer your question about Guerrilla warfare in Crimea. But to me it seems such a situation would be influenced by who remains in an area.

The invasion by Russia has already created a humanitarian crisis and flood of refugees seeking resettlement far away from Russia. It also means that many of the previous refugees from Crimea, with some estimates over a million plus out of a population of 2 million in the former Crimea area, will again have to seek refuge from the Russians.

https://www.politico.eu/article/crimea-refufees-crimean-tatar-ukraine-russia-moscow-conflict-displaced-people-invasion/

By some reports it seems the population have been "replaced" in the Crimea with "colonisers" from Russia. 

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3275174-population-of-crimea-increased-by-one-million-due-to-migration-from-russia-during-occupation-expert.html

Perhaps that may account for why there is no guerilla warfare!

But I wouldn't count on the same with Ukraine. They have already shown their military is far more organised than expected. With a population of 41.4 million, and 33 million of those over the age of 18, together with the lessons learnt from what happened in Crimea, guerilla warfare seems to be getting discussed far more often and likely to be used this time if needed.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006655/ukraine-population-by-age-group/

Edited March 15, 2022 by Smithydog
Corrected population numbers and added link

[Smithydog]

11 hours ago, KRLMRX said:

with all due respect to Hoover, Stalin did it in all respects - industrialization, raising the standard of living of citizens MULTIPLE times, , victory over Nazism. And what did Hoover do, lead the country to the Great Depression?

Putin is an anti-communist, of course he scolds Stalin.

To use a similar example to the one you use. Stalin was in leadership when World War 2 commenced. Should he be held to blame for that considering especially he allowed a pact with the Nazis?

There is a significant difference between the two. Yes, Hoover was in charge when the great depression started. But is was actually him who foresaw the stock market crash that caused the great depression and warned others about it. As President he then went about trying to get policies in place to overcome that, many of which were continued in the "New Deal" proposed by his successor. 

But like many one time Presidents, he was seen to have failed in his efforts and the American voters replaced him with someone inspiring more confidence. Didn't see anyone gutsy enough to remove Stalin from office.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/hating-on-herbert-hoover

But there is a major difference. He didn't directly cause the deaths of those from the depression. Stalin murdered people in his purges. To compare them as the same, in any fashion, is simply wrong.

I personally don't think Putin wants to be Stalin, but the deaths of so many are now on his hands with his decision to invade another country. The way he meets people, his actions and showing himself off, indicates more a wish to be like a Russian Tsar controlling a vast empire.

The mass of his forces in Ukraine as stated in the article and the results we are seeing, indicate his objectives, including now bombing of places far away from the stated area he wanted to "Peacekeep". This clearly indicates what he sad was a pack of lies.

Perhaps through his deceptions, killing innocent civilians and attacking non-military targets despite what he said, he has has more commonality with Stalin then first thought!

How many more must die to satisfy the ego of one man. I fear millions unless someone removes him from office. His nuclear trigger hand is getting too triggy especially as losses build.

[ThailandBob]

57 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

This clearly indicates what he sad was a pack of lies.

Read my lips. We're not invading, we're not using conscripts, and no hospitals have been destroyed.

[Pinetree]

On 3/7/2022 at 12:30 PM, Artemis080 said:

The world needs to continue to throw Russia and any ally into the Dark Ages with imposing an unthinkable level of sanctions.

As an ex RAF mud mover, I prefer an unthinkable level of munitions. Sanctions don't work long term, bombs tend to work immediately, given enough of the right kind. 

[KRLMRX]

10 hours ago, EdwardV said:

So Georgia tried to arrange ethnic cleansing of themselves? Seems they did a good job of it. After all, no one would ever think Russia was behind the Georgians being ethnically cleansed from an area they wished to occupy. 

I'd argue Putin is talking about reintegration of Ukraine into Russia: 

He argued that Ukraine was a creation of the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin, its first leader, despite extensive evidence of a distinctive Ukrainian culture before that. Putin also made a claim that Ukraine was a part of Russia's historic territory. He said in his speech: "Let me emphasize once again that Ukraine for us is not just a neighboring country. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space. "These are our comrades, relatives, among whom are not only colleagues, friends, former colleagues, but also relatives, people connected with us by blood, family ties."

Putin Denies Reviving Russian Empire, Says Ukraine Not Real Country (businessinsider.com)

That doesn't sound like someone wanting a neutral country between Russia and NATO. It would also be pretty hard to create a neutral Ukraine after killing hundreds of thousands of it's citizens and turning it's cities into dust. That's not the way to create the necessary warm and fuzzy friendship between two nations. At least not without keeping your boot on their neck through the stationing of troops on the land (which in and of itself would argue against the whole "neutral" status thing). 

 

Yes, after the war, 1992-1993, when Georgians were expelled from Abkhazia, in 2008 Georgia, with the support of the West, tried to take revenge, but lost and Russian troops entered Abkhazia and Ossetia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Abkhazia_(1992–1993)

I see no reason to guess what thoughts are in Putin's head.  I suppose it also changes, depending on the development of the situation

 

[KRLMRX]

3 hours ago, Smithydog said:

I'll leave it to more qualified people to directly answer your question about Guerrilla warfare in Crimea. But to me it seems such a situation would be influenced by who remains in an area.

The invasion by Russia has already created a humanitarian crisis and flood of refugees seeking resettlement far away from Russia. It also means that many of the previous refugees from Crimea, with some estimates over a million plus out of a population of 2 million in the former Crimea area, will again have to seek refuge from the Russians.

https://www.politico.eu/article/crimea-refufees-crimean-tatar-ukraine-russia-moscow-conflict-displaced-people-invasion/

By some reports it seems the population have been "replaced" in the Crimea with "colonisers" from Russia. 

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3275174-population-of-crimea-increased-by-one-million-due-to-migration-from-russia-during-occupation-expert.html

Perhaps that may account for why there is no guerilla warfare!

But I wouldn't count on the same with Ukraine. They have already shown their military is far more organised than expected. With a population of 41.4 million, and 33 million of those over the age of 18, together with the lessons learnt from what happened in Crimea, guerilla warfare seems to be getting discussed far more often and likely to be used this time if needed.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006655/ukraine-population-by-age-group/

why discuss guerrilla warfare? it must be carried out if you think that you have been annexed.

Opinions are good, but where is the evidence of a million migrants from Crimea and their replacement with Russians?

[KRLMRX]

2 hours ago, Smithydog said:

To use a similar example to the one you use. Stalin was in leadership when World War 2 commenced. Should he be held to blame for that considering especially he allowed a pact with the Nazis?

There is a significant difference between the two. Yes, Hoover was in charge when the great depression started. But is was actually him who foresaw the stock market crash that caused the great depression and warned others about it. As President he then went about trying to get policies in place to overcome that, many of which were continued in the "New Deal" proposed by his successor. 

But like many one time Presidents, he was seen to have failed in his efforts and the American voters replaced him with someone inspiring more confidence. Didn't see anyone gutsy enough to remove Stalin from office.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/hating-on-herbert-hoover

But there is a major difference. He didn't directly cause the deaths of those from the depression. Stalin murdered people in his purges. To compare them as the same, in any fashion, is simply wrong.

I personally don't think Putin wants to be Stalin, but the deaths of so many are now on his hands with his decision to invade another country. The way he meets people, his actions and showing himself off, indicates more a wish to be like a Russian Tsar controlling a vast empire.

The mass of his forces in Ukraine as stated in the article and the results we are seeing, indicate his objectives, including now bombing of places far away from the stated area he wanted to "Peacekeep". This clearly indicates what he sad was a pack of lies.

Perhaps through his deceptions, killing innocent civilians and attacking non-military targets despite what he said, he has has more commonality with Stalin then first thought!

How many more must die to satisfy the ego of one man. I fear millions unless someone removes him from office. His nuclear trigger hand is getting too triggy especially as losses build.

pact that Stalin was the last to sign in Europe? After the whole of Europe spread its legs in front of Hitler?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_A

greement of course, you can blame him for this, but he is the last in line for censure.

Closing the topic of Hoover - his wishes and feelings are not interesting, the main thing is the result, and Stalin's is noticeably better.

The political system was different, the replacement of parrots on a stick is not an obligatory attribute of democracy.

[Tim_Melb]

4 hours ago, EdwardV said:

Why would he choose to do so? Outside of being nuts of course. There are no military targets worth the blowback in Ukraine. They are using mostly small units with little to no stockpiles of supplies nor critical transportation nodes. At least none that can’t be as  easily taken out with conventional weapons. You could blast Kyiv but in doing so you kill a million or so civilians. You don’t come back from that. Even if you want to think of it after a NATO entry into Ukraine it still doesn’t make sense. As long as NATO units don’t bunch together, the risk isn’t worth the reward. You kill a couple  of battalions but start a nuclear war? This while Russia territory isn’t actually threaten. To start a nuclear war is suicidal, something that’s not a trait of world leaders. 
 

I still contend it’s nothing more than a form of blackmail in order to shape the battlefield.

As I have said he would only do it if things are going badly for Russia which right now they are not. But if NATO enter the conflict that could be an entirely different situation. Right now as you say it's just a threat to keep them out of it but if the decided to do what the idiots I was replying to suggest and create a no fly zone and start attacking ground targets or as you suggest send in ground units then the whole dynamic will change. Under those circumstances he would be quite comfortable making strikes against NATO targets and not just a n the field. You need to understand Putin is Russian and what that means. He is not an American with a furry hat and he is not a loony he is Russian and if he feels that he is going to lose he will be more than happy to make it a draw in the most horrific way. 

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, KRLMRX said:

pact that Stalin was the last to sign in Europe? After the whole of Europe spread its legs in front of Hitler?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_A

greement of course, you can blame him for this, but he is the last in line for censure.

Closing the topic of Hoover - his wishes and feelings are not interesting, the main thing is the result, and Stalin's is noticeably better.

The political system was different, the replacement of parrots on a stick is not an obligatory attribute of democracy.

"the main thing is the result, and Stalin's is noticeably better". Sure 20 million dead better according to a Soviet Newspaper!

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html

You sure do have an unusual sense of what results are better! 

[Smithydog]

1 hour ago, KRLMRX said:

why discuss guerrilla warfare? it must be carried out if you think that you have been annexed.

Opinions are good, but where is the evidence of a million migrants from Crimea and their replacement with Russians?

The following article gives a good understanding of what has happened and continues.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/03/30/forced-migration-in-crimea-as-part-of-russias-hybrid-strategy/

Here again is the link to the article that supported my statements in the previous post.

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3275174-population-of-crimea-increased-by-one-million-due-to-migration-from-russia-during-occupation-expert.html

Multiple articles discuss what has happened. These are just two.

But it seems forced expulsions have become a way of life for the regime installed in the Crimea and controlled by the Russians. 

https://khpg.org/en/1594308593#:~:text=Such deportations are a war,flagrant violation of international law.

It is clear why Putin doesn't fear the consequences of a war crimes trial. He has already gotten away with it in the Crimea, so probably considers himself "untouchable". 

No wonder many of those refugees fear what will happen. They have seen it already from this seemingly ego driven Autocrat. So much for a "Peacekeeping" mission.

[vlad]

You have not been watching the news, Tim. I said the Ukrainian soldiers have been trained to use the most up-to-date mobile ie hand-held anti-tank missiles that are being effective. Some cruise missiles are being intercepted and being destroyed by fixed Anti Aircraft batteries on the ground so yes they are stopping some. Sadly because there being targeted in built-up areas in Kyiv some of them are shot down and there falling on buildings. One person was killed while in a tram that got hit by a downed missile.  You say we won't get a nuke off if we are attacked, we have Four Trident Missile subs just in the UK 2 which are likely now on high alert somewhere within the range of Russia there the whereabouts are not known as only the Captain and Defence Secretary knows where they are. They can sit on the Sea Bed for weeks if necessary. So I wouldn't be shitting myself knowing we can if needed incinerate Russia. What you should be worrying about is if Putin uses Chemical weapons or if they target a Nato country. The Russian military are being defeated by Ukranian forces theres no doubt about that. Thats why he is keeping his troops away from the major city's. Instead he is flattening civilian target's in the hope they will give up.

[Rookiescot]

9 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

You clearly do not understand what the term air superiority means. SAM strikes and anti-aircraft are irrelevant. 

How do you know the Ukrainians dont have any aircraft?