Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Why Are We in Ukraine?
416,419 Views |
6284 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by The_barBEARian
its like you've never read any history at all, much less Russian history.Sam Lowry said:More revisionist history there. The inevitability of Russian expansion was at best a fringe idea, perhaps held by the likes of Dick Cheney and others who immediately began planning Russia's demise. Unfortunately it's the lunatics who have taken charge since then.whiterock said:ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
Russia has always been a plunderer, to the limits of its power and beyond.
NATO expanded to prevent Russia from doing so, which only the lunatic fringe would deny was inevitable.
imagine the US invading Mexico and 2 years later El Paso gets taken over
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
They are not taking the Baltics IF NATO is willing to adhere to Article 5.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
That will be the question, if NATO reacts quickly and harshly, Russia will back down. If the go appeasement and talk about it Putin will keep taking until you physically stop him. It is all he understands.
Your paranoid reading of "history" isn't history. It's a mess of half-baked hypotheses and contradictions. Russia has a history of war and conquest (so do we). Autocracies are the enemy (except when they aren't). Democracy means peace and stability (until we subvert it). It's somewhat understandable given that the Anglosphere has been steeped in anti-Russian hysteria and propaganda for generations. What's worse is not even knowing the post-Cold War history thorough which you yourself lived. But I can tell you whether you want to believe it or not -- there was a time when rational people discussed rational foreign policy with respect to Russia. Peaceful coexistence is only a radical idea to those who weren't paying attention.whiterock said:its like you've never read any history at all, much less Russian history.Sam Lowry said:More revisionist history there. The inevitability of Russian expansion was at best a fringe idea, perhaps held by the likes of Dick Cheney and others who immediately began planning Russia's demise. Unfortunately it's the lunatics who have taken charge since then.whiterock said:ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
Russia has always been a plunderer, to the limits of its power and beyond.
NATO expanded to prevent Russia from doing so, which only the lunatic fringe would deny was inevitable.
It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).Sam Lowry said:They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
They are Russian insurgents:trey3216 said:No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).Sam Lowry said:They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.
Quote:
Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff
Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.
On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.
It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/
It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.
The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.Sam Lowry said:They are Russian insurgents:trey3216 said:No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).Sam Lowry said:They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.Quote:
Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff
Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.
On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.
It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/
It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.
I'm not talking about another front in Kursk. I'm talking about the likely Russian response in Sumy.FLBear5630 said:The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.Sam Lowry said:They are Russian insurgents:trey3216 said:No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).Sam Lowry said:They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.Quote:
Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff
Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.
On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.
It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/
It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.
I suspect the Ukrainians are already regretting this. You'll notice they didn't comment on it until a few hours ago, and then only in the vaguest terms.
Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
DC and Moscow got tired of Ukraine playing the field and decided to force the issue
But yea…up until 2014 Ukraine was doing a good job playing each against the other for aid and investment.
[Ukraine's negotiations with the EU on bilateral free trade meant that, in 2007, Ukraine did not take up Russia's offer of a customs union.
….in April the EU unilaterally removed tariffs on 95% of Ukrainian goods earmarked for duty-free access in the DCFTA. It intends to maintain this policy until 1 January 2016, when, through a process called 'provisional application', the DCFTA will come into force regardless of the state of ratification by the EU's member states.]
[Less than three months later Yanukovich spurned the EU, embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin and struck a deal on December 17 for a bailout of his country. Russia will invest $15 billion in Ukraine's government debt and reduce by about a third the price that Naftogaz, Ukraine's national energy company, pays for Russian gas.]
No. That dude jumped the gone and was dead wrong. 100% Ukrainian assault.
rough day for you comrade, take a break from social mediaRedbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
ron.reagan said:rough day for you comrade, take a break from social mediaRedbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
1….sigh, you're so lame
2…russia is not communist state you liberal nut gargler
Sam Lowry said:I'm not talking about another front in Kursk. I'm talking about the likely Russian response in Sumy.FLBear5630 said:The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.Sam Lowry said:They are Russian insurgents:trey3216 said:No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).Sam Lowry said:They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.Quote:
Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff
Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.
On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.
It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/
It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.
I suspect the Ukrainians are already regretting this. You'll notice they didn't comment on it until a few hours ago, and then only in the vaguest terms.
They are not regretting it. They took the initiative and brought the fight to Russia. They are making them think.
It may not win the war, but from a military perspective soldiers want to take the fight to the enemy. It is just a slice of the bigger effort.
Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
It's only a threat if your intent is to behave in a way that a defensive alliance would need to be invoked. The Putin criticism came from the same people who think Russia should swallow Ukraine whole. Turns out Russia's actions proved the necessity of it securing protection for itself.
It's undisputed that Ukraine sought further negotiations and the EU refused.ATL Bear said:Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
It's only a threat if your intent is to behave in a way that a defensive alliance would need to be invoked. The Putin criticism came from the same people who think Russia should swallow Ukraine whole. Turns out Russia's actions proved the necessity of it securing protection for itself.
A neutral Ukraine, which all parties had agreed to, was an essential part of the European security structure following the Cold War. The systematic violation of that structure, the overthrow of Ukraine's government, the build-up of its army, support for extremist militias, dismantling of the arms control framework, etc. had to be regarded by Russian leaders as a threat. They would have been negligent otherwise. Their actions only proved that they will eventually enforce red lines (contrary to what we foolishly assumed and somehow continue to assume).
ATL Bear said:Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
It's only a threat if your intent is to behave in a way that a defensive alliance would need to be invoked. The Putin criticism came from the same people who think Russia should swallow Ukraine whole. Turns out Russia's actions proved the necessity of it securing protection for itself.
Bingo.
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 9, 2024
Ukrainian drone swarm strikes the Russian military Airbase Lipetsk.
Large explosions followed by secondary explosions.
Lipetsk is home to a number of Russian Su-34s, MiG-29s, Su-25s and at times 2x Su-57s. pic.twitter.com/0JsYzl4Wbh
Well, we know what happened to the first batch of major Russian reinforcements to the Kursk salient...Sam Lowry said:I'm not talking about another front in Kursk. I'm talking about the likely Russian response in Sumy.FLBear5630 said:The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.Sam Lowry said:They are Russian insurgents:trey3216 said:No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).Sam Lowry said:They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.Quote:
Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff
Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.
On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.
It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/
It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.
I suspect the Ukrainians are already regretting this. You'll notice they didn't comment on it until a few hours ago, and then only in the vaguest terms.
Column of Russian vehicles, personnel destroyed in Kursk Oblast, multiple sources say https://t.co/O9gs6MpZc7 #TechJunkieInvest #investing #EmergingMarkets #geopolitics #ModernWarfare #Europe #Ukraine #Russia #UkraineWar #Kursk
— Tech Junkie (@techjunkiejh) August 9, 2024
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Drones have totally altered the tactical dynamics of warfare.boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 9, 2024
Ukrainian drone swarm strikes the Russian military Airbase Lipetsk.
Large explosions followed by secondary explosions.
Lipetsk is home to a number of Russian Su-34s, MiG-29s, Su-25s and at times 2x Su-57s. pic.twitter.com/0JsYzl4Wbh
Hope those in charge of our vulnerable, multi billion dollar aircraft carriers are paying attention.
Force Russia to react and change their plans. So far, this war has gone on Putin's schedule. Ukraine has had success with Drones and in the Black Sea. This is a nice move, even if small. Creative tactics force the initiative on Russia. So, next move?trey3216 said:Well, we know what happened to the first batch of major Russian reinforcements to the Kursk salient...Sam Lowry said:I'm not talking about another front in Kursk. I'm talking about the likely Russian response in Sumy.FLBear5630 said:The strategy is threatening the Nuclear Plant, they only went with a Battalion. Nobody opens a 2nd front with a battalion. It was not meant to open a 2nd front. It was meant to force Russia to react and get them out of their comfort zone. Threatening that Nuclear Plant is a nice move... I don't think anyone has illusions of unseating Putin.Sam Lowry said:They are Russian insurgents:trey3216 said:No. They're not. They're Ukrainian military and are flying the Ukrainian flag over the police station in Sudzha, which just so happens to have the main railroad connection from Russia's interior to Belgorod (which as we know, is the main staging area for Russia's actions in NE Ukraine).Sam Lowry said:They're actually Russian insurgents, and this isn't the first time. They were the same ones attacking Belgorod in late spring to early summer.Redbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
They are described as "self-styled 'partisans' trying to bring the Putin government down...they range from the soccer-thug neo-Nazis to the wannabe celebrities and even to some semi-serious political reformers. They are not 'liberals' but rather hard-line Russian nationalists -- just not of the Putin variety."
Basically a bunch of LARPers looking for easy targets and photo ops instead of going where the real fighting is.
It's now an area under control of almost 400 sq km., and it's bad enough that PUtin and the MoD had to get on tv and speak to it. That's a terrible, terrible look . If they hadn't already "lost" this war in the court of public opinion, they damn sure have now.Quote:
Pro-Ukrainian Russian Troops In U.S.-Made Stryker Vehicles Just Launched A Pointless Invasion Of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defenses Crumble For A Want Of Manpower.
Who authorized the Liberty of Russia Legion's wasteful cross-border attack?
David Axe
Forbes Staff
Five months after launching a short-lived raid across Ukraine's northern border with Russia into the Russian border town of Tetkino, the Liberty of Russia Legion -- Russians who fight for Ukraine -- is at it again.
On Tuesday, legionnaires in American-made Stryker armored vehicles raced across the border into the town of Sudzha, 35 miles east of Tetkino. The pro-Ukrainian Russians swiftly knocked out a couple of T-62 tanks, took a few prisoners and shot down a Russian air force Kamov Ka-52 attack helicopter, reportedly killing its crew.
It's all very dramatic -- and also a shameful waste of precious military resources. At the same time, the Liberty of Russia Legion was mucking around in Sudzha, a town with practically no military value, and over-stretched Ukrainian brigades were retreating from Niu-York, a former Ukrainian stronghold just west of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/06/pro-ukrainian-russian-troops-in-us-made-stryker-vehicles-just-launched-a-pointless-invasion-of-russia-meanwhile-ukrainian-defenses-crumble-for-a-want-of-manpower/
It's a bad look? Sure, that's the point. Another public relations stunt to fuel your fantasies of widespread rebellion against Putin. It will work as well as the Wagner uprising, the attacks on Belgorod, etc. Then Ukraine will have to deal with the consequences of opening a new front in the Sumy region, in addition to the Kharkiv region, when they're already desperately short of troops in the Donbas. Great strategy there.
I suspect the Ukrainians are already regretting this. You'll notice they didn't comment on it until a few hours ago, and then only in the vaguest terms.Column of Russian vehicles, personnel destroyed in Kursk Oblast, multiple sources say https://t.co/O9gs6MpZc7 #TechJunkieInvest #investing #EmergingMarkets #geopolitics #ModernWarfare #Europe #Ukraine #Russia #UkraineWar #Kursk
— Tech Junkie (@techjunkiejh) August 9, 2024
Instinct is to dig in and get a toe-hold in Russia. Gut says stay mobil and cause havoc in the rear and threaten that Nuke Plant, if they can re-supply. US, we would re-supply by air and already have a bladder or two in place, but that is what we do best, logistics.
This is just a speculative brain fart digging up long ago thought processes, would love to hear with some with recent Cav experience. Do you hit and run back to Ukraine space? Dig In? Continue on the offensive? Attack the Nuke Plant?
I am impressed with Ukraine's ability to innovate. Will it be enough? Probably not, but they have really done some creative stuff.
Are you so quick to drop your vernacular culture?Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:rough day for you comrade, take a break from social mediaRedbrickbear said:boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 8, 2024
The Ukrainian Army continues to advance in the Russian Kursk region, breaking through additional defensive lines.
In this video, they take 50 Russian soldiers as prisoners of war.
It’s the first time in 70+ years that Russia is being invaded pic.twitter.com/DQwNH70K5G
As a depleted and numerically under matched Ukrainian army penetrates deep into Russia....I am just worried that Russian forces will use this opportunity to take the Baltic States and Poland.
1….sigh, you're so lame
2…russia is not communist state you liberal nut gargler
Yes, in Desert StormKaiBear said:Drones have totally altered the tactical dynamics of warfare.boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 9, 2024
Ukrainian drone swarm strikes the Russian military Airbase Lipetsk.
Large explosions followed by secondary explosions.
Lipetsk is home to a number of Russian Su-34s, MiG-29s, Su-25s and at times 2x Su-57s. pic.twitter.com/0JsYzl4Wbh
Hope those in charge of our vulnerable, multi billion dollar aircraft carriers are paying attention.
ATL Bear said:Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
I think you mean prevented from joining NATO...
Ukraine was engaging with the EU for a long time....and Russian policy toward their EU membership was agnostic
In fact it was EU leadership that seemed to have cold feet about Ukraine for some reason.
[Ukraine's quest to join the EU can be traced back to the early 1990s, immediately after the country gained its independence. Since the very beginning of its state-building journey, most of Ukraine's leaders have officially declared that the country is EU bound-even if several simultaneously sought to maintain or even deepen Ukraine's economic and political ties to Russia. But unlike for their neighbors in Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, the EU's welcome mat was never laid out for Ukrainians.]
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukrainians-unwavering-path-toward-the-eu?lang=en
Negotiations had been going on for years and a framework agreement was ready to execute. Meanwhile the Russians were threatening to cut off more energy supplies, expanding business sanctions, and blockading goods creating extra risks and costs requiring more money for Ukraine. Yanukovych literally did an insta flip in a matter of days/weeks.Sam Lowry said:It's undisputed that Ukraine sought further negotiations and the EU refused.ATL Bear said:Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
It's only a threat if your intent is to behave in a way that a defensive alliance would need to be invoked. The Putin criticism came from the same people who think Russia should swallow Ukraine whole. Turns out Russia's actions proved the necessity of it securing protection for itself.
A neutral Ukraine, which all parties had agreed to, was an essential part of the European security structure following the Cold War. The systematic violation of that structure, the overthrow of Ukraine's government, the build-up of its army, support for extremist militias, dismantling of the arms control framework, etc. had to be regarded by Russian leaders as a threat. They would have been negligent otherwise. Their actions only proved that they will eventually enforce red lines (contrary to what we foolishly assumed and somehow continue to assume).
The Russians thwarted efforts by Ukraine to link with the EU once Putin began consolidating power. The seminal events were the largest EU expansion that occurred in 2004 followed by more Eastern European nations in 2007. Ironically, many of those countries were ALREADY in NATO. Ukraine wanted that (EU), but Russia wouldn't allow it, and definitely didn't want the anti corruption measures that were a key component. So much so they attempted to assassinate political candidates and killed journalists and opposition that tried to expose it.
Ukraine was never allowed to be neutral because Russia wanted to lord over them with corruption, blackmail, military threats, and constant internal meddling. Their actions immediately following Maiden were a culmination of their strategy. Invasion, unlawful seizures, fomenting rebellion, and economic warfare.
I've said it all along with many Russian conflicts. If you want to win the influence war, be a better partner. As it is, they are only effective with corrupt despots that they can bolster their authoritarianism.
No, they were preventing the EU move, and in some harsh ways. EU had cold feet because of anti-corruption issues. Ukraine had to show it wasn't going to do business and government the Russian way.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
I think you mean prevented from joining NATO...
Ukraine was engaging with the EU for a long time....and Russian policy toward their EU membership was agnostic
In fact it was EU leadership that seemed to have cold feet about Ukraine for some reason.
[Ukraine's quest to join the EU can be traced back to the early 1990s, immediately after the country gained its independence. Since the very beginning of its state-building journey, most of Ukraine's leaders have officially declared that the country is EU bound-even if several simultaneously sought to maintain or even deepen Ukraine's economic and political ties to Russia. But unlike for their neighbors in Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, the EU's welcome mat was never laid out for Ukrainians.]
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukrainians-unwavering-path-toward-the-eu?lang=en
Exactly, the corruption is left over from the Soviet influence. Having a Western leaning leader is the first step away from corruption.ATL Bear said:No, they were preventing the EU move, and in some harsh ways. EU had cold feet because of anti-corruption issues. Ukraine had to show it wasn't going to do business and government the Russian way.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
I think you mean prevented from joining NATO...
Ukraine was engaging with the EU for a long time....and Russian policy toward their EU membership was agnostic
In fact it was EU leadership that seemed to have cold feet about Ukraine for some reason.
[Ukraine's quest to join the EU can be traced back to the early 1990s, immediately after the country gained its independence. Since the very beginning of its state-building journey, most of Ukraine's leaders have officially declared that the country is EU bound-even if several simultaneously sought to maintain or even deepen Ukraine's economic and political ties to Russia. But unlike for their neighbors in Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, the EU's welcome mat was never laid out for Ukrainians.]
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukrainians-unwavering-path-toward-the-eu?lang=en
ATL Bear said:No, they were preventing the EU move, and in some harsh ways. EU had cold feet because of anti-corruption issues. Ukraine had to show it wasn't going to do business and government the Russian way.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Russia was preventing Ukraine from engaging the EU, not the other way around.Sam Lowry said:It's your position that Ukraine's future was with the EU and not Russia. Ukraine's desire was to have a future with both. They were denied the choice, and that's the source of the problem.ATL Bear said:We already had and have Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. Ukraine's interest in Russia had been waning for years and knew their upside was with the EU and not Russia. They (Russia) were abusing them in energy and other trade deals, and overtly meddling. You seem to ignore that when Russia stole Crimea, they also stole Billions of Ukrainian industrial assets, and those remain uncompensated for.Sam Lowry said:Russian interests were not irrelevant. They had a legitimate interest in the EU deal because of existing trade relationships with Ukraine. Both countries were ready to talk. As usual the West was not. Putin put national interests above neoliberal dogma, and that's something we don't forgive. But all of this is secondary to the threat of Western troops and missiles on Russia's doorstep. In our arrogance we thought they'd tolerate something we never would.ATL Bear said:Ukraine was separating in the late 80s and it became official with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point Ukraine was free to go in whatever direction it wanted to, and Russian interests became irrelevant. In fact if it wasn't for the U.S., Russia wouldn't have gotten its nukes back. But Russia, the early criminal oligarchs, and then eventually the Putin aligned oligarchs kept Ukraine in a state of corruption and doing business the Russian way, and when some got in the way they subverted and even tried to kill them.Sam Lowry said:Russia let Ukraine go voluntarily in 1991. I know that in your triumphalist view of the world they had no choice, but the truth is that they were relying on our assurances. As for the EU deal, it was widely recognized as predatory even by Western commentators. The proof is in the pudding. Russia's economic prospects have greatly improved under Putin, while Ukraine has continued to be a cesspool of stagnation and corruption.ATL Bear said:NATO expansion never was a threat to Russia. Losing economic access to plunder Ukraine as desired was the threat.Sam Lowry said:Whiterock's premise -- that Russia is an incurably expansionist power -- is a bit of revisionist history. When NATO expansion was first being considered, no one thought conflict was inevitable. Conservatives like me thought that NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Neoconservatives assured us that this would never, ever happen. Now that they've been proven horribly wrong, they're changing the narrative to justify the mess they created (and the war that some secretly wanted).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Read the posts again. RUSSIA will use covert/unconventional warfare to create a crisis in Estonia. Russians are about 8% of the population and are heavily concentrated in urban areas, particularly Narva (look at a map).Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Think asymmetrically. They will do in Estonia exactly what they did in Donbas. It will start in Narva.FLBear5630 said:I do not believe that Russia will fight NATO, as you show they cannot win without going Nuke and that is the end of Russia.whiterock said:
they don't have 10k any more....... Most estimates of losses hover (allowing for prorations based upon dating for sources) in the 4k range. (beware conflation in the data between "tanks' and "armored vehicles." Latter definition would approach a 5-digit number.)
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-1914657
they theoretically have production capacity for 250 tanks/yr. That's not chump change. That's at or above the number of tanks in the British Army. But the real picture is that they have diverted a lot of capacity mostly over to refurbishing the older stocks. That stuff has been sitting in storage yards for decades. All the rubber is rotted, rust has fused things that are supposed to move, like levers and bearings and etc...... None of the commo gear will work. And they have to upgrade some things, comms, fire control, etc.....a little or a lot. And, of course, the nature of a refurbishment exercise on very old equipment means there is a lot of cannibalization going on. So that 10k number really isn't 10k. It's at least a 4-digit number smaller than that (allowing for leftover hulks). And any good refurbishment exercise will overhaul the easiest units first, meaning as they eat their way thru the inventory, the amount of work required to get each unit operable rises progressively to the point that it's cheaper to just make a new one. When they make that conversion, that "20 tanks per month" production number will rise.
worse, Russia cannot maintain that level of production forever. USA at peacetime production nearly equals Russian production. Add in British, French, German production, and Russia is in the hole before any of the Nato countries mobilize to war-time production levels.
I do believe they are playing for the "Ukraine Style" of war, they do not believe that NATO will go to war over Kalingrad, Latvia and Lithuania. That NATO will supply weapons and let them flounder like Ukraine. I believe that is the end game.
In the end, I think Putin will view Crimea, Dombas and Kalingrad/Souther Lithuania as a success.
There will be a DC sponsored coup/color revolution in the capital of Tallinn....leading to a Moscow backed separatist insurgency in the east?
I doubt it....why would DC over throw a government they already own?
At this point literally every one of your excuses for more proxy war and more tax payer cash been burned through are total hypotheticals.
Russia MIGHT invade Poland...Russian MIGHT invade Moldovia...Russia MIGHT use local ethnic russians in Estonia to create some kind of crisis (even though they are a tiny percentage of the pop.)
Well I mean Russia MIGHT blockade the port of Houston or spray paint your dog green.....or steal the Statue of Rufus Burleson off the quad on campus (oh wait someone already torn that one down!)
If Russia is this endless-and immanent- threat then why not get the Congress to declare war? Just invade and engage in a regime change war....we did it Iraq....heck the Wagner group almost overthrew the regime in Moscow a few months back.
It can't be that hard right? Why not just come out and say you want war with the current Russian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
NATO expansion was a threat for any number of reasons. Our abrogation of arms control treaties and placing of missiles in Romania and Poland was a threat in itself. Expansion was also a means to the end of breaking up and exploiting Russia much like we've exploited Ukraine. I suspect many here would have cheered such a result enthusiastically.
The only thing that was "predatory" about the EU deal was the anti-corruption requirements, which Russia was willing to eschew to keep the Putin grift network operating. And Russia's economic prospects were temporarily bolstered by sustained energy prices and the FDI that attracts. But instead of truly leveraging that to the benefit of the broader economy, Putin and his oligarch partners restructured the Russian industrial sectors so as to consolidate power and economic control (and make billions).
NATO was only an angle for aggressive Russian action as a security threat. But the only threat was the loss of a vassal economy for Russia.
Your belief in Putin as a beneficent actor is misguided and has been from the outset.
It's disingenuous to say there were already troops and missiles in the vicinity. Obviously the closer they are, the greater the threat. This sort of argument is why Russians criticize Putin for tolerating it as long as he did. Every concession just invites more hubris from the West.
I think you mean prevented from joining NATO...
Ukraine was engaging with the EU for a long time....and Russian policy toward their EU membership was agnostic
In fact it was EU leadership that seemed to have cold feet about Ukraine for some reason.
[Ukraine's quest to join the EU can be traced back to the early 1990s, immediately after the country gained its independence. Since the very beginning of its state-building journey, most of Ukraine's leaders have officially declared that the country is EU bound-even if several simultaneously sought to maintain or even deepen Ukraine's economic and political ties to Russia. But unlike for their neighbors in Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, the EU's welcome mat was never laid out for Ukrainians.]
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukrainians-unwavering-path-toward-the-eu?lang=en
Well they took in Romania, Bulgaria, etc. that have extreme corruption problems.
[For years, Bulgaria was the most corrupt country in the European Union, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index]
[Bulgaria and Romania have recently been subject to close scrutiny due to the substantial and unyielding problem of corruption in both countries]
And they are now moving forward rapidly with Ukrainian membership....all while Ukraine is still highly corrupt
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 9, 2024
The Ukrainian Army has taken Sudzha in the Kursk region of Russia.
It had 6000 inhabitants before the Russian invasion and is the largest settlement taken by Ukraine in the Kursk region so far.
Via @NOELreports pic.twitter.com/pnt06pldqE