• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkCorrigan said:
Not really, Arnold had a number of very good reasons for doing what he did.
Click to expand...

Not seeing any mention of payment for this espionage. Presumably there are at least some true believers in the Russian cause among Ukrainians, as wicked and stupid as that may seem to me and you.

Seems he's gone "all-in", so to speak. Not likely to see the outside of a prison unless the Russians win this thing. Probably should make himself comfortable in that case and not make many future plans.
 
dudalb said:
And the the US Marjorie Taylor Green has stated she will never vote for any budget that funds the Uraine.
I wonder why she has become so obssesed with US aid to Ukraine. Maybe the answer lies in a Swiss Bank Account......
Click to expand...

I wouldn't underestimate how much legs this might have. The US is has an open tab for this foreign war, meanwhile the economic situation back in the US is pretty precarious for average people.

Not that I think that a prompt end of the war would result in more social spending in this country, especially from the likes of ghouls like MTG, but it's still seems like the kind of message that could be persuasive to a lot of people who are reasonably more concerned about their own economic wellbeing than some war between two countries they don't care about.
 
Well some politicians can promise end of spending in Ukraine. But no politician will promise giving that money to the masses. Also compared to other chapters of spending, like non war related MOD budget, what is sent to UK is loose change. Also it's mostly aging military hardware, which was build to fight Russia in the first place.
It should be better communicated though. Lot better.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Well some politicians can promise end of spending in Ukraine. But no politician will promise giving that money to the masses. Also compared to other chapters of spending, like non war related MOD budget, what is sent to UK is loose change. Also it's mostly aging military hardware, which was build to fight Russia in the first place.
It should be better communicated though. Lot better.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure "we were never going to put that money for good use, war or no war" is a winning message, even though it's 100% true.
 
a_unique_person said:
All her talking points are straight out of the Kremlin. She probably doesn't know that but that's what they are. Mueller found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and they are influencing GOP idiots still.
Click to expand...

So? We have people in this thread insinuating that Zelensky might use the war as an excuse to cancel elections and become dictator for life. "Kremlin talking points" are everywhere.
 
theprestige said:
So? We have people in this thread insinuating that Zelensky might use the war as an excuse to cancel elections and become dictator for life. "Kremlin talking points" are everywhere.
Click to expand...

The Kremlin never seems to shut up. Was it this chatty when it was officially Soviet?
 
Anyway, the UK MoD reports that Moscow's air force has lost about 90 planes since the start of this war, with increased wear and tear and reduced access to spare parts further degrading their air power. This likely represents a long-term reduction in Moscow's ability to conduct aerial combat operations.

This reminds me of something else I've been thinking lately, about this war. That is, there's the day-to-day progress Ukraine is making to repel the invader in the short therm. This is the "war as such", that we hope will end as soon as possible, with Ukraine liberating the occupied regions and bringing Moscow to detente along the internationally-recognized borders.

But there is also the operations and strategies Ukraine is undertaking, that degrade Moscow's overall ability to wage war in the long term. Even if Moscow manages to draw out its occupation for several more years, the "special military operation" has already gone bad for them. The fruits of the invasion have already rotted on the vine. Crimea will never be a safe space for Russians to vacation, for Moscow to do business. The Black Sea fleet will never have a safe harbor there. The Russian Air Force will not recover its former strength for decades, if ever. Moscow's premier anti-NATO formations will never be reconstituted at anything like their Soviet-era strength. Their "elite" airborne troops are gutted for a generation. Even if Ukraine does not soon win the war for liberation of its territory and people, it is ensuring that Moscow has already lost and wlll continue to lose its chief strategic objectives.

tl;dr - no matter how long Moscow holds onto Crimea, it's already lost the strategic value that made Crimea worth taking.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Anyway, the UK MoD reports that Moscow's air force has lost about 90 planes since the start of this war, with increased wear and tear and reduced access to spare parts further degrading their air power. This likely represents a long-term reduction in Moscow's ability to conduct aerial combat operations.

This reminds me of something else I've been thinking lately, about this war. That is, there's the day-to-day progress Ukraine is making to repel the invader in the short therm. This ithe "war as such", that we hope will end as soon as possible, with Ukraine liberating the occupied regions and bringing Moscow to detente along the internationally-recognized borders.

But there is also the operations and strategies Ukraine is undertaking, that degrade Moscow's overall ability to wage war in the long term. Even if Moscow manages to draw out its occupation for several more years, the "special military operation" has already gone bad for them. The fruits of the invasion have already rotted on the vine. Crimea will never be a safe space for Russians to vacation, for Moscow to do business. The Black Sea fleet will never have a safe harbor there. The Russian Air Force will not recover its former strength for decades, if ever. Moscow's premier anti-NATO formations will never be reconstituted at anything like their Soviet-era strength. Their "elite" airborne troops are gutted for a generation. Even if Ukraine does not soon win the war for liberation of its territory and people, it is ensuring that Moscow has already lost and wlll continue to lose its chief strategic objectives.

tl;dr - no matter how long Moscow holds onto Crimea, it's already lost the strategic value that made Crimea worth taking.
Click to expand...

Sure, but presumably so long as Ukraine remain an active war zone with disputed borders it will not be considered for NATO membership. Keeping the anti-Russia alliance off their doorstep is a significant factor.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Not really, Arnold had a number of very good reasons for doing what he did.
Click to expand...

The popularly accepted historical overview of the Benedict Arnold story leaves out many facts. Not least of which being that before he decided he was supporting the wrong side he had been one of the revolutionary colonies most successful and celebrated generals, and had spent much if not most of his considerable personal wealth to pay for the support of his troops when the Continental Congress did not see fit to do so.

It was that success which made his defection seem all the more heinous in the eyes of the contemporary public. But his treatment by politically motivated superiors would have spurred less resilient men to decide they had had enough far more quickly than he did.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Do you disagree? NATO is never going to admit a country that is actively at war or has a disputed boundary.
Click to expand...
That's not the part I was laughing at. I was laughing at the Kremlin talking point you introduced so swiftly on the heels of my saying Kremlin talking points are everywhere, including in this thread.

Of course Moscow wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO and the EU. Once it joins those alliances, Moscow's ability to exploit it as a vassal state vanishes. Ukraine's economic output, natural resources, and strategic position were about to slip from its grasp.

lobosrul5 said:
I think perhaps he took issue with you calling NATO an "anti-Russian alliance." Its no such thing. Its a defensive pact.
Click to expand...
Actually I have no problem with calling NATO an anti-Russian alliance. It is, in my opinion, exactly and absolutely that. But it's a defensive alliance. Its organizing principle is the inevitability of Russian aggression, against any neighbor too weak to fend them off. There's a reason so many Warsaw Pact nations scrambled to join NATO, in the years after the Pact collapsed.

NATO poses no threat to the interests of a peaceful Russia. The idea that Russia must invade Ukraine to protect itself from the risk of NATO aggression is a Kremlin talking point worthy of Medvedev himself (or MTG herself, if Medvedev isn't sufficiently villainous and buffoon-tastic in your eyes).
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
That's not the part I was laughing at. I was laughing at the Kremlin talking point you introduced so swiftly on the heels of my saying Kremlin talking points are everywhere, including in this thread.

Of course Moscow wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO and the EU. Once it joins those alliances, Moscow's ability to exploit it as a vassal state vanishes. Ukraine's economic output, natural resources, and strategic position were about to slip from its grasp.
Click to expand...

It's not a Kremlin talking point to acknowledge that Russia has war aims. Stating those aims is not an endorsement.


theprestige said:
Actually I have no problem with calling NATO an anti-Russian alliance. It is, in my opinion, exactly and absolutely that. But it's a defensive alliance. Its organizing principle is the inevitability of Russian aggression, against any neighbor too weak to fend them off. There's a reason so many Warsaw Pact nations scrambled to join NATO, in the years after the Pact collapsed.

NATO poses no threat to the interests of a peaceful Russia. The idea that Russia must invade Ukraine to protect itself from the risk of NATO aggression is a Kremlin talking point worthy of Medvedev himself (or MTG herself, if Medvedev isn't sufficiently villainous and buffoon-tastic in your eyes).
Click to expand...

I agree that Russia has no moral right to prevent its neighbors from conducting its peaceful foreign affairs however it pleases, but from a realpolitik frame of mind, you'd have to assume Russia would not accept a bordering nation falling into the sphere of influence of those seen as their adversaries. Recent history has shown that Russia was quite serious about preventing this from happening.

Hell, Cuba went communist like a lifetime ago and the US is still filling its diaper over it. We don't have to play dumb here. The US would not readily tolerate our immediate neighbors allying itself with our sworn enemies, sovereignty be damned.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
I agree that Russia has no moral right to prevent its neighbors from conducting its peaceful foreign affairs however it pleases, but from a realpolitik frame of mind, you'd have to assume Russia would not accept a bordering nation falling into the sphere of influence of those seen as their adversaries. Recent history has shown that Russia was quite serious about preventing this from happening.
Click to expand...
What did Russia do when Finland applied then joined NATO?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Clutch Cargo
Split Thread Conspiracy theories around the Russian invasion of Ukraine
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
248
Views
5K
arthwollipot
arthwollipot
Andy_Ross
  • Locked
Split From Conspiracy theories around the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Replies
3
Views
150
Shiner
Shiner

Back
Top Bottom