Russia/Ukraine conflict

[eleison]

Putin's main issue is NATO, especially NATO's eastward expansion and double especially inviting Ukraine to join. Trump was working to destroy NATO, so Putin was happy to grab popcorn and watch.

Biden worked to repair US/Europe ties, but that takes time and disagreement over issues like Nordstream 2 slowed progress. Then the Afghan debacle knocked Biden down a few notches. So Putin hatched a plan to quickly install a puppet government in Kyiv.

"And it would have worked, too, if not for those pesky (Ukrainian) kids!"

So people are dying because of NATO? Putin doesn't want NATO. Trump agreed with this and did not support NATO expansion. That is why why Russia did not invade while Trump was in office? and that is why some people think Trump is a Putin apologist?

This begs the question, why is Ukraine's membership to NATO such a big deal that Russia is willing to go over war with Ukraine... and engulf the world into WW3 killing millions? All the death and destruction (assuming some of it is not propaganda) we are seeing is caused by Ukraine wanting to be a NATO member and NATO expansion? Who cares? Is there a logical reason to be against NATO from a Russian perspective that I'm missing? Or is it one of those things like "well, Putin doesn't like NATO even though membership to NATO means nothing now a days"?

I heard one of the biggest sticking points for a peace treaty would be for Ukraine NOT be part of NATO, so obviously. Obviously, this NATO thing must be important for Russia for some reason. Just trying to understand the full picture of the conflict amid conflicting reports.

 

[Singuy]

Putin's main issue is NATO, especially NATO's eastward expansion and double especially inviting Ukraine to join. Trump was working to destroy NATO, so Putin was happy to grab popcorn and watch.

Biden worked to repair US/Europe ties, but that takes time and disagreement over issues like Nordstream 2 slowed progress. Then the Afghan debacle knocked Biden down a few notches. So Putin hatched a plan to quickly install a puppet government in Kyiv.

"And it would have worked, too, if not for those pesky (Ukrainian) kids!"

I'm pretty sure Nato wasn't inviting Ukraine to join. More likely Ukraine expressed interest but NATO has many requirements that Ukraine didn't qualify. The biggest requirement for one is that sovereign land cannot be contested which was obviously not the case since Crimea and the war in the Donbas. The chances of Ukraine being accepted into NATO as of 2022 was 0% as all members of NATO must have a unanimous vote of YES.

​

 

[MC3OZ]

So people are dying because of NATO? Putin doesn't want NATO. Trump agreed with this and did not support NATO expansion. That is why why Russia did not invade while Trump was in office? and that is why some people think Trump is a Putin apologist?

This begs the question, why is Ukraine's membership to NATO such a big deal that Russia is willing to go over war with Ukraine... and engulf the world into WW3 killing millions? All the death and destruction (assuming some of it is not propaganda) we are seeing is caused by Ukraine wanting to be a NATO member and NATO expansion? Who cares? Is there a logical reason to be against NATO from a Russian perspective that I'm missing? Or is it one of those things like "well, Putin doesn't like NATO even though membership to NATO means nothing now a days"?

I heard one of the biggest sticking points for a peace treaty would be for Ukraine NOT be part of NATO, so obviously. Obviously, this NATO thing must be important for Russia for some reason. Just trying to understand the full picture of the conflict amid conflicting reports.

Ukraine wasn't even considering joining NATO when Russia invaded Crimea.

The limited war has been going on at least 8 years, it started when the Ukrainian people ousted a leader who was loyal to Russia.

Ukraine always knew a larger war was probably coming that is why they wanted to join NATO.

NATO is essentially defensive rather than offensive.

While part of the Russian objection to NATO is legit, part is that NATO prevents Russia from rebuilding the USSR by conquering countries like Ukraine, Poland, Latvia etc.

Russian excuses abut NATO being a threat to Russia are just excuses, or a heavy does of paranoia.

The plan to invade Ukraine was worked out long ago, I don't think Ukraine or NATO could have done much to avoid it.

Ukraine also knew war was probably coming and wants to get it over with. Or they wanted to join NATO before it started, as that might have prevented it.

We have to understand Putin and other Russians have nostalgia for the days of the USSR when they were a major superpower.
We also have to understand that the last thing the Ukraine, Poland and other ex-soviet countries want is a return to the days of the USSR.

We are now going through a slow process of Russia realising any dream of returning to the USSR is a lost cause.

As I posted above, Russia still has a chance of saving face and at least making the war an honourable draw. To do that it needs to encircle and defeat the primary Ukrainian army. Even if that is possible, it will lead to a lot more Russian casualties and equipment losses, on top of sanctions beginning to bite.

Ukraine was neutral before Russia invaded Crimea, and it has already indicated it is prepared to be neutral in future and not join NATO.

 

[stopcrazypp]

So people are dying because of NATO? Putin doesn't want NATO. Trump agreed with this and did not support NATO expansion. That is why why Russia did not invade while Trump was in office? and that is why some people think Trump is a Putin apologist?

This begs the question, why is Ukraine's membership to NATO such a big deal that Russia is willing to go over war with Ukraine... and engulf the world into WW3 killing millions? All the death and destruction (assuming some of it is not propaganda) we are seeing is caused by Ukraine wanting to be a NATO member and NATO expansion? Who cares? Is there a logical reason to be against NATO from a Russian perspective that I'm missing? Or is it one of those things like "well, Putin doesn't like NATO even though membership to NATO means nothing now a days"?

I heard one of the biggest sticking points for a peace treaty would be for Ukraine NOT be part of NATO, so obviously. Obviously, this NATO thing must be important for Russia for some reason. Just trying to understand the full picture of the conflict amid conflicting reports.

Article 5 is the sticking point. An attack on a member of NATO is considered an attack on all of NATO. That means there can be a military response that involves all military members.
North Atlantic Treaty - Wikipedia

I was beat to it, but while NATO is related to Russia's motivations, it is not really the "cause". The "cause" is Russia have always had a long term goal to reclaim the countries that broke away from USSR (whether that is via puppets/pro-Russia leaders or military action). If Ukraine is part of NATO, the door is closed for that (given NATO would come to Ukraine's defense), which is part of the motivation for invasion now (but not the cause).

However, as others pointed out, there was pretty much zero chance of Ukraine being approved to be part of NATO anytime soon (there are a bunch of criteria that Ukraine doesn't qualify for), thus Russia saying their justification for invading is Ukraine applying for membership doesn't hold water. Even if Ukraine became part of NATO, there is zero evidence either that it would invade Russia, as it's a defensive alliance (plus it requires unanimous agreement to take action, so barrier is very high to decide to invade a country).
Consensus decision-making at NATO

As for NATO "expansion" I think that framing is misleading. It wasn't NATO actively courting the eastern European countries to join, it's those countries clamoring to join due to perceived threat from Russia (the fear of which has been justified many times over, given Russia's invasions of multiple eastern European countries). Rather than a "eastern expansion" of NATO, it's the opposite: it's the eastern European nations going west (and joining western alliances like NATO and EU).

 

[Singuy]

Article 5 is the sticking point. An attack on a member of NATO is considered an attack on all of NATO. That means there can be a military response that involves all military members.
North Atlantic Treaty - Wikipedia

I was beat to it, but while NATO is related to Russia's motivations, it is not really the "cause". The "cause" is Russia have always had a long term goal to reclaim the countries that broke away from USSR (whether that is via puppets/pro-Russia leaders or military action). If Ukraine is part of NATO, the door is closed for that (given NATO would come to Ukraine's defense), which is part of the motivation for invasion now (but not the cause).

However, as others pointed out, there was pretty much zero chance of Ukraine being approved to be part of NATO anytime soon (there are a bunch of criteria that Ukraine doesn't qualify for), thus Russia saying their justification for invading is Ukraine applying for membership doesn't hold water. Even if Ukraine became part of NATO, there is zero evidence either that it would invade Russia, as it's a defensive alliance.

As for NATO "expansion" I think that framing is misleading. It wasn't NATO actively courting the eastern European countries to join, it's those countries clamoring to join due to perceived threat from Russia (the fear of which has been justified may times over, given Russia's invasions of multiple eastern European countries). Rather than a "eastern expansion" of NATO, it's the opposite: it's the eastern European nations going west (and joining western alliances like NATO and EU).

I think another major reason why countries like to join NATO is so they can DECREASE their military spending and use tax dollars to focus on other things like education and infrastructure. Only 5 countries in NATO actually adhere to the agreement of min 2% of their GDP must be spent on defense. Most countries just mooch off what the US provides which is enough firepower to ward of an alien invasion. Essentially you sign a piece of paper that bought you the most powerful military on earth for chump change. You just can't use it for any offensive needs but it's one hell of an insurance policy that's too good to pass up.

This is one of the main talking points from Americans(like Trump) against NATO as it does seem like we are providing this awesome insurance policy for all members but many are freeloaders not spending their promised share.

 

[sundaymorning]

Sanctions are working, intellectuals are leaving Russia in large numbers:

Russian IT brain drain accelerates dramatically as economic collapse threatens industry

Since the war in Ukraine began, triggering unprecedented international sanctions against Russia, some 50,000-70,000 Russian IT professionals have ...

www.intellinews.com

Since the war in Ukraine began, triggering unprecedented international sanctions against Russia, some 50,000-70,000 Russian IT professionals have left their country, reports the Russian Association of Electronic Communications (RAEC), reports East-West Digital News (EWDN).

This is only a first wave, says the association, which expects up to 100,000 additional IT workers to leave in April.

Keep in mind that these are individuals who possess the means to leave, many Russians who want to leave can’t afford the price tag.

 

[SageBrush]

It wasn't NATO actively courting the eastern European countries to join, it's those countries clamoring to join due to perceived threat from Russia (the fear of which has been justified may times over, given Russia's invasions of multiple eastern European countries). Rather than a "eastern expansion" of NATO, it's the opposite: it's the eastern European nations going west (and joining western alliances like NATO and EU).

I see it this way too, but I'm willing to be a large sum of money that to Putin and Russian nationalists, it is a distinction without a difference.

 

[MC3OZ]

Sanctions are working, intellectuals are leaving Russia in large numbers:

Russian IT brain drain accelerates dramatically as economic collapse threatens industry

Since the war in Ukraine began, triggering unprecedented international sanctions against Russia, some 50,000-70,000 Russian IT professionals have ...

www.intellinews.com

Since the war in Ukraine began, triggering unprecedented international sanctions against Russia, some 50,000-70,000 Russian IT professionals have left their country, reports the Russian Association of Electronic Communications (RAEC), reports East-West Digital News (EWDN).

This is only a first wave, says the association, which expects up to 100,000 additional IT workers to leave in April.

Keep in mind that these are individuals who possess the means to leave, many Russians who want to leave can’t afford the price tag.

The Russians have indicated they are now going to try to stop IT professionals leaving, but many have already gone.

 

[SageBrush]

This is one of the main talking points from Americans(like Trump) against NATO as it does seem like we are providing this awesome insurance policy for all members but many are freeloaders not spending their promised share.

Sure, but the Trump moron never realized the obvious: The USA kept Russia at arm's length through a proxy, and just to sweeten the deal the US gained a huge foreign legion. Americans have never been invaded, so they find it difficult to value an unrazed country. Take some time to look at those war photos. Now ask yourself how much you want it to be true that the war is there and not in your city. Try to imagine your neighborhood being bombed for a month.

 

[STS-134]

This begs the question, why is Ukraine's membership to NATO such a big deal that Russia is willing to go over war with Ukraine... and engulf the world into WW3 killing millions?

It's not. Remember this speech?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1495836950145933313

 

[MC3OZ]

Sure, but the Trump moron never realized the obvious: The USA kept Russia at arm's length through a proxy, and just to sweeten the deal the US gained a huge foreign legion. Americans have never been invaded, so they find it difficult to value an unrazed country. Take some time to look at those war photos. Now ask yourself how much you want it to be true that the war is there and not in your city. Try to imagine your neighborhood being bombed for a month.

NATO like all good alliances benefits all parties.
Putin has now got the Germans to engage on a bigger military budget.

I can't remember too many speeches where Trump has criticized Putin, I can remember a few where he has praised Putin, and denigrated NATO.
I can't remember Trump being smart enough to realise Putin was a threat, and that Putin considered the US to be the enemy.

I do think the US and countries like Australia should engage more positively with China, at least have a civil dialogue and try diplomacy.
China is the bigger threat, but it also seems more pragmatic and rational.

 

[sundaymorning]

More evidence that sanctions are stinging Russia:

Chinese oil and gas company cancels $500m investment in Russia

The state-run Sinopec Group realised a senior figure at Sibur was an ally of Vladimir Putin and has therefore decided to press hold on plans

www.telegraph.co.uk

A Chinese state-run oil and gas company has cancelled half a billion dollars of investment out of Russia to dodge sanctions.

The state-run Sinopec Group hit pause on plans to market Russian gas in China after realising that a senior figure at Russia’s Sibur was a long-term ally of Vladimir Putin.

The move marks a hardening in China’s policy towards Russia amid the invasion, with which it has maintained regular trade amid a slew of sanctions by the West.

 

[wws]

NATO like all good alliances benefits all parties.
Putin has now got the Germans to engage on a bigger military budget.

I can't remember too many speeches where Trump has criticized Putin, I can remember a few where he has praised Putin, and denigrated NATO.
I can't remember Trump being smart enough to realise Putin was a threat, and that Putin considered the US to be the enemy.

I do think the US and countries like Australia should engage more positively with China, at least have a civil dialogue and try diplomacy.
China is the bigger threat, but it also seems more pragmatic and rational.

Then President Trump tried five years ago to warn the European countries, especially Germany, about becoming too dependent on Russian oil and gas by shutting down their nuke and coal plants too early. (*) He warned against the Nordstream II pipeline and did what he could to stall its construction. (Undone by Biden on his first day in office...) And yes, he was also wanting the other members of NATO to pay their fair share - which they had been shirking for decades at U.S. taxpayer expense. If they would have paid their fair share, this would allow NATO to be an even more powerful deterrent to Russia.

If you don't believe me, there are videos on youtube of him making these statements when meeting with the NATO leaders back then. Doesn't sound like a "Putin puppet" to me. Unless, of course one believes the discredited Steele Dossier which was pushed by CNN/MSNBC/etc during his entire presidency. The Steele Dossier was absolutely Russian disinformation.

Now all of the sudden, various NATO countries have started talking about honoring their 2% of GDP commitment. They've also stopped the Nordstream II pipeline. Just as President Trump was trying to get them to do. And it will be interesting to see if some of the nuke capability can be brought back on line for a while - until they get their renewable act together.

(*) For the record, I'm a big proponent of solar, and to some extent nuke - though less than I used to be. I also dislike burning coal for any reason. But there are only so many manufacturing facilities for solar and batteries. It takes time to scale. So from a pragmatic point of view, we need to keep existing facilities on line until they can be economically replaced. Elon, for one, seems to have the same attitude WRT nuke. Glad he agrees with me.

 

[MC3OZ]

Unless, of course one believes the discredited Steele Dossier which was pushed by CNN/MSNBC/etc during his entire presidency. The Steele Dossier was absolutely Russian disinformation.

It isn't all about Trump, but I am inclined to believe there was Russian meddling to help get him elected as he was seen as favourable to their cause,

For now I think NATO and Biden have done a good job of helping Ukraine.

I don't think there was much anyone could have done to stop Russia before things got to this point.

For starters Ukraine needed time to get ready, and Trump also try to delay arms shipments to Ukraine earlier.

Behind the scenes, the US, UK, Canada and Turkey have done a lot to help Ukraine.

if I had to list the countries I don't want to fight in a war in order they are:-

1. US
2. China
3. Turkey
4. Israel
5. UK
6. Canada
7. Russia

The Turkish drones have been a big factor in this war, Turkey doesn't quite have the hi-tech Israel has, but they have a lot of gear, and the willingness to use it.

IMO if Trump was in office he would have chosen one of 2 polar extremes:-

1. Everything
2. Nothing

Sorry to break it to you, but most of the world views him as having the mental capacity of a toddler, and I think we are right.
By toddler I mean 2-3 year old, with eyes only for the lolly jar, what they want, and no capacity to consider the needs of others.
i.e totally lacking, maturity, common-sense and compassion. Or leaders are not great, but I would be very embarrassed if we ever elected a leader that bad, I would consider immigrating.

 

[wdolson]

Its now down to a race for batteries friend. That's the sum and total of it at this point. LiFePO plants announcements are exploding all over. Recently the news from CA is that batteries are the new thing, solar is abundant. Batteries are coming it is going to take 3 more years to really scale them up. After that we just have a continuous cycle of improvements and reductions in oil reliance. With that comes a decrease in reliance on dictators and bad actors. Then...then comes an uncertain future full of exciting possibilities.

Again..the more people think something can't happen the more likely it will. Nothing was more repressive than Romania. It happened there. Ukraine...it happened.

The socialdemocrat/socialist/communist debate is bit OT, but it’s an important one. Imo often people try to simplify this discussion and it becomes more about semantics than the real world. Nobody knows what words mean, it mostly what we think other people think that they mean. See for example:
View attachment 786844
Basically this is how our entire language works. Everything is semantics... We don’t really know what any word means, we just guess it on a scale based on how other people have used and reacted to the word.

Wrt to socialism etc, these are neither binary ie either a country is 0% or 100% socialist and it’s not on one dimension such as tax %, heck even tax% is not a single dimension. And then we have a timescale, so things change over time. Saying that Sweden is successful because they are socialdemocrat, while China is poor because they today are capitalist is not the entire story, as these things takes time to have an effect. This is how taxes changed in Sweden over the last 170years.
View attachment 786845

So trying to label Sweden as only being one thing is not the entire truth. We can say that in some period 1850-1920 Sweden was less socialist, in 1970-1990 it was more socialist and today it is a bit less. At least with regards to taxes, but that’s probably correlated to other dimensions as well. These time periods have together built the country and thus the merit/blame should not go to either of these.

And some effects of policies take long time to show, some policies such as deficit spending, might improve a country for 5-30years but hurt the country a long time later and by then another system might be in place and have to deal with it. So it’s really hard to compare countries and say which policy is the better.

The Swedish side of my family left in the 1870s and 1880s. All of my father's grandparents were from Sweden and both his parents were born shortly after their parents emigrated. The stories my father had from his relatives was life in Sweden wasn't so great when they left.

With the Social Democrats controlling the narrative for more than 80 years is going to have a major impact on the society.

Ukraine wasn't even considering joining NATO when Russia invaded Crimea.

The limited war has been going on at least 8 years, it started when the Ukrainian people ousted a leader who was loyal to Russia.

Ukraine always knew a larger war was probably coming that is why they wanted to join NATO.

NATO is essentially defensive rather than offensive.

While part of the Russian objection to NATO is legit, part is that NATO prevents Russia from rebuilding the USSR by conquering countries like Ukraine, Poland, Latvia etc.

Russian excuses abut NATO being a threat to Russia are just excuses, or a heavy does of paranoia.

The plan to invade Ukraine was worked out long ago, I don't think Ukraine or NATO could have done much to avoid it.

Ukraine also knew war was probably coming and wants to get it over with. Or they wanted to join NATO before it started, as that might have prevented it.

We have to understand Putin and other Russians have nostalgia for the days of the USSR when they were a major superpower.
We also have to understand that the last thing the Ukraine, Poland and other ex-soviet countries want is a return to the days of the USSR.

We are now going through a slow process of Russia realising any dream of returning to the USSR is a lost cause.

As I posted above, Russia still has a chance of saving face and at least making the war an honourable draw. To do that it needs to encircle and defeat the primary Ukrainian army. Even if that is possible, it will lead to a lot more Russian casualties and equipment losses, on top of sanctions beginning to bite.

Ukraine was neutral before Russia invaded Crimea, and it has already indicated it is prepared to be neutral in future and not join NATO.

I don't think the invasion was planned all that long ago. If it was years in the making they would have restructured the army to make it more suited for the invasion. The army they brought was completely unsuited for the fight they got. It's pretty clear the Russians only planned on a 3 day campaign expecting Ukraine to collapse quickly and when it didn't, they were surprised.

This has all the hallmarks of an ad hoc invasion put together in a matter of months, not a well planned campaign.

Sure, but the Trump moron never realized the obvious: The USA kept Russia at arm's length through a proxy, and just to sweeten the deal the US gained a huge foreign legion. Americans have never been invaded, so they find it difficult to value an unrazed country. Take some time to look at those war photos. Now ask yourself how much you want it to be true that the war is there and not in your city. Try to imagine your neighborhood being bombed for a month.

Technically the US has been invaded, but the last time was 210 years ago, so the memory had faded to nothing. But your point it taken. For many Europeans any war on the continent of Europe is unacceptable and they freak out when it happens. Precisely because they still live with the scars of WW II.

Unexploded ordinance from WW II is found so commonly in Europe that it rarely makes the news other than locally. That's virtually unheard of in the US where occasionally something is found from the civil war, or somebody picks up something and takes it home. (My sister on a Geology field trip to the gunnery range at Camp Pendelton picked up an unexploded 20mm round and brought it home, my father freaked out when he found out about it.)

In other news it looks like the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia that Russia was pretty much preventing may be on again.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Then President Trump tried five years ago to warn the European countries, especially Germany, about becoming too dependent on Russian oil and gas by shutting down their nuke and coal plants too early. (*) He warned against the Nordstream II pipeline and did what he could to stall its construction. (Undone by Biden on his first day in office...) And yes, he was also wanting the other members of NATO to pay their fair share - which they had been shirking for decades at U.S. taxpayer expense. If they would have paid their fair share, this would allow NATO to be an even more powerful deterrent to Russia.

If you don't believe me, there are videos on youtube of him making these statements when meeting with the NATO leaders back then. Doesn't sound like a "Putin puppet" to me. Unless, of course one believes the discredited Steele Dossier which was pushed by CNN/MSNBC/etc during his entire presidency. The Steele Dossier was absolutely Russian disinformation.

Now all of the sudden, various NATO countries have started talking about honoring their 2% of GDP commitment. They've also stopped the Nordstream II pipeline. Just as President Trump was trying to get them to do. And it will be interesting to see if some of the nuke capability can be brought back on line for a while - until they get their renewable act together.

(*) For the record, I'm a big proponent of solar, and to some extent nuke - though less than I used to be. I also dislike burning coal for any reason. But there are only so many manufacturing facilities for solar and batteries. It takes time to scale. So from a pragmatic point of view, we need to keep existing facilities on line until they can be economically replaced. Elon, for one, seems to have the same attitude WRT nuke. Glad he agrees with me.

Putting aside US LNG lobbying plays a large part in the US support for blocking Nordstream II (it's not all about independence from Russia), that spin is quite misleading.
PolitiFact - Kayleigh McEnany spins comparison of Trump, Biden on Russian gas pipeline
The sanctions on Nordstream II was passed in a bipartisan bill, mostly because Trump had made plenty of pro-Russia remarks, and congress did not want Trump at the head of any negotiations. Trump only begrudgingly signed it, saying "The bill remains seriously flawed – particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate." It's a case of the rest of the government making the right decisions despite him, not because of him.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-bill/index.html
As for evidence of Trump's Pro-Putin/Pro-Russia remarks, I'm too lazy to look it all up, but luckily some publications did the job already:
Trump on Putin: The U.S. President’s Views, In His Own Words
He did it even right up to the invasion:
Trump praises Putin as 'savvy' amid new escalations on Russia-Ukraine border

 

[MC3OZ]

The Swedish side of my family left in the 1870s and 1880s. All of my father's grandparents were from Sweden and both his parents were born shortly after their parents emigrated. The stories my father had from his relatives was life in Sweden wasn't so great when they left.

With the Social Democrats controlling the narrative for more than 80 years is going to have a major impact on the society.



I don't think the invasion was planned all that long ago. If it was years in the making they would have restructured the army to make it more suited for the invasion. The army they brought was completely unsuited for the fight they got. It's pretty clear the Russians only planned on a 3 day campaign expecting Ukraine to collapse quickly and when it didn't, they were surprised.

This has all the hallmarks of an ad hoc invasion put together in a matter of months, not a well planned campaign.



Technically the US has been invaded, but the last time was 210 years ago, so the memory had faded to nothing. But your point it taken. For many Europeans any war on the continent of Europe is unacceptable and they freak out when it happens. Precisely because they still live with the scars of WW II.

Unexploded ordinance from WW II is found so commonly in Europe that it rarely makes the news other than locally. That's virtually unheard of in the US where occasionally something is found from the civil war, or somebody picks up something and takes it home. (My sister on a Geology field trip to the gunnery range at Camp Pendelton picked up an unexploded 20mm round and brought it home, my father freaked out when he found out about it.)

In other news it looks like the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia that Russia was pretty much preventing may be on again.

They have been working to weaken Ukraine ever since the invasion of Crimea.

The Russians believed a large pot of money and propaganda had the local populace on board and that the invasion would be a walk over.
Where and how that large pot on money was actually spent, is a matter for speculation.

Russia has also spent a lot of money on "modernising" their army.

But what they really expected with continuing compliance with a list of demands before the invasion, so no actual need to invade as Ukraine would bow to the inevitable.

If Putin was angry it was because Ukraine would not submit to his demands and the invasion was necessary. But at that stage he genuinely thought it would take 2-3 days.

 

[wdolson]

It isn't all about Trump, but I am inclined to believe there was Russian meddling to help get him elected as he was seen as favourable to their cause,

For now I think NATO and Biden have done a good job of helping Ukraine.

I don't think there was much anyone could have done to stop Russia before things got to this point.

For starters Ukraine needed time to get ready, and Trump also try to delay arms shipments to Ukraine earlier.

Behind the scenes, the US, UK, Canada and Turkey have done a lot to help Ukraine.

if I had to list the countries I don't want to fight in a war in order they are:-

1. US
2. China
3. Turkey
4. Israel
5. UK
6. Canada
7. Russia

The Turkish drones have been a big factor in this war, Turkey doesn't quite have the hi-tech Israel has, but they have a lot of gear, and the willingness to use it.

IMO if Trump was in office he would have chosen one of 2 polar extremes:-

1. Everything
2. Nothing

Sorry to break it to you, but most of the world views him as having the mental capacity of a toddler, and I think we are right.
By toddler I mean 2-3 year old, with eyes only for the lolly jar, what they want, and no capacity to consider the needs of others.
i.e totally lacking, maturity, common-sense and compassion. Or leaders are not great, but I would be very embarrassed if we ever elected a leader that bad, I would consider immigrating.

I would think Australia's military today is more intimidating than Canada's. Canada has a great military tradition being given some serious tasks in both world wars (Canada was one of the three nations who landed at Normandy among other things), but after their experiences in WW II they took a more pacifist approach and the army is only 35,000 troops today.

They are well trained and well equipped, but it's a fairly small force to protect the second largest country on Earth.

And lots of American agree with you about Trump, but that's another discussion that would probably be shut down by moderators...

They have been working to weaken Ukraine ever since the invasion of Crimea.

The Russians believed a large pot of money and propaganda had the local populace on board and that the invasion would be a walk over.
Where and how that large pot on money was actually spent is a matter for speculation.

Russia has also spent a lot of money on "modernising" their army.

But what they really expected with continuing compliance with a list of demands before the invasion, so no actual need to invade as Ukraine would bow the the inevitable.

If Putin was angry it was because Ukraine would not submit to his demand and an invasion was necessary. But at that stage he genuinely though it would take 2-3 days.

The Russian military is more smoke and mirrors than substance. They invest in high tech systems and talk them up, but they don't really live up to the hype.

I saw a comparison of the T-90 to the Abrams written before the invasion that concluded the T-90 was better than the Abrams, but it appears to be just as vulnerable as the T-72, which is a 50 year old tank design. The Russians lost more T-90s in a few weeks than the Americans have lost Abrams in 30 years.

Part of the Russian losses are extremely poor doctrine. They have no concept of operating combined arms and battlefield tactics, which has contributed to their losses, but their equipment has broken down at an alarming rate too.

The modernization of the army was for show. The bulk of their army is still using Soviet era equipment.

The demands the Russians made before the invasion were all over the map, and the demands they have made for peace negotiations after have been all over the map too. They intended to overthrow Ukraine and put in a puppet, then get out. They were sure the Ukrainians would just accept that. The demands before the invasion were just part of the theater they were putting on. The fact that Putin said just before the invasion that he did not recognize Ukraine as a separate country was the truth. He wanted to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty.

If Russia does manage to pivot to the Donbas only strategy, they might have some success there, but their forces are so degraded they are going to have a tough time doing it. Going more than 90 miles from a rail head is virtually impossible for them and to surround the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas they would have to extend their lines another 100+ miles.

They are also very hard up for equipment. I read something the other day that they set up a depot in western Russia not too far from the Ukrainian border where vehicles from their reserves are being shipped and mechanics are trying to rehab them and make them combat ready. The problem they are facing is the vehicles have often been stripped of anything that could be sold on the black market: electronics, optics, even engines. They had one tank in running condition out of 50 or so delivered to the depot.

They might get some running, but they won't be combat ready. But some high ranking officer will swoop in and order them to ship out x number of vehicles, so they will load up what is there and ship it out and let the field mechanics worry about it. Most will be useless for combat.

The Russians are also dipping into their reserve troops. These are even worse quality than what they fielded a month ago. They are running out of basics like uniforms, rifles, and other basic provisions. There are stories of Russian soldiers being sent out to strip the uniforms off the dead and leaving the bodies in the fields.

The A team was terrible and the B team is going to try and accomplish something the A team couldn't?

The Russians have had more success in the Donbas than any other part of the country. Most of the knocked out Ukrainian equipment I've seen has been there. I give them a slight chance to succeed, but considering what they have to work with, I'm skeptical they will manage to beat the Ukrainians.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ So trying to label Sweden as only being one thing is not the entire truth. We can say that in some period 1850-1920 Sweden was less socialist, in 1970-1990 it was more socialist and today it is a bit less. At least with regards to taxes, but that’s probably correlated to other dimensions as well. These time periods have together built the country and thus the merit/blame should not go to either of these. /...

I think you got off to a good start in that post, but this part I do not really get. The first election where women were allowed to vote in Sweden was held in 1921. Sweden can not be considered to have been a Democracy before that year...

 

[MC3OZ]

I would think Australia's military today is more intimidating than Canada's. Canada has a great military tradition being given some serious tasks in both world wars (Canada was one of the three nations who landed at Normandy among other things), but after their experiences in WW II they took a more pacifist approach and the army is only 35,000 troops today.

They are well trained and well equipped, but it's a fairly small force to protect the second largest country on Earth.

And lots of American agree with you about Trump, but that's another discussion that would probably be shut down by moderators...



The Russian military is more smoke and mirrors than substance. They invest in high tech systems and talk them up, but they don't really live up to the hype.

I saw a comparison of the T-90 to the Abrams written before the invasion that concluded the T-90 was better than the Abrams, but it appears to be just as vulnerable as the T-72, which is a 50 year old tank design. The Russians lost more T-90s in a few weeks than the Americans have lost Abrams in 30 years.

Part of the Russian losses are extremely poor doctrine. They have no concept of operating combined arms and battlefield tactics, which has contributed to their losses, but their equipment has broken down at an alarming rate too.

The modernization of the army was for show. The bulk of their army is still using Soviet era equipment.

The demands the Russians made before the invasion were all over the map, and the demands they have made for peace negotiations after have been all over the map too. They intended to overthrow Ukraine and put in a puppet, then get out. They were sure the Ukrainians would just accept that. The demands before the invasion were just part of the theater they were putting on. The fact that Putin said just before the invasion that he did not recognize Ukraine as a separate country was the truth. He wanted to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty.

If Russia does manage to pivot to the Donbas only strategy, they might have some success there, but their forces are so degraded they are going to have a tough time doing it. Going more than 90 miles from a rail head is virtually impossible for them and to surround the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas they would have to extend their lines another 100+ miles.

They are also very hard up for equipment. I read something the other day that they set up a depot in western Russia not too far from the Ukrainian border where vehicles from their reserves are being shipped and mechanics are trying to rehab them and make them combat ready. The problem they are facing is the vehicles have often been stripped of anything that could be sold on the black market: electronics, optics, even engines. They had one tank in running condition out of 50 or so delivered to the depot.

They might get some running, but they won't be combat ready. But some high ranking officer will swoop in and order them to ship out x number of vehicles, so they will load up what is there and ship it out and let the field mechanics worry about it. Most will be useless for combat.

The Russians are also dipping into their reserve troops. These are even worse quality than what they fielded a month ago. They are running out of basics like uniforms, rifles, and other basic provisions. There are stories of Russian soldiers being sent out to strip the uniforms off the dead and leaving the bodies in the fields.

The A team was terrible and the B team is going to try and accomplish something the A team couldn't?

The Russians have had more success in the Donbas than any other part of the country. Most of the knocked out Ukrainian equipment I've seen has been there. I give them a slight chance to succeed, but considering what they have to work with, I'm skeptical they will manage to beat the Ukrainians.

OK I wasn't 100% sure about Canada, but I did know their training was excellent.

Australian soldiers are great fighters, I would back us against anyone, but our equipment is outdated and there is too little of it.

Mostly just due to some bad luck or poor purchasing decisions recently.

With the emerging trend towards Missiles and Drones, get some Subs and some modern fighter jets, we are back in the game.

I am sure about Turkey, I've been there, they seem to have military bases everywhere.