• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Jayjay said:


There was another "training flight" crash a few weeks back. That one didn't have any civilian casualties. But these incidents really show the quality of the Russian air force.

Or maybe they're adjusted their training regiment to match what they're going to face in Ukraine: crashing and burning. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Either the quality of the air force or the quality of the workers at the base--things like that can come from the plane eating something on the runway. Remember the Concorde crash.
 
It was reported well before the war Russian pilots did not get nearly as much training and flight time as NATO pilots. It takes money to keep a large number of fighter pilots in a state of readiness.

In the 80s on paper the Soviets had an advantage in tanks, but only a small percentage was ready for war at any time relative to NATO.

I went to Navy electronics schools. When I got out it carried weight for employment. Very good training.
 
Jayjay said:
Jarhyn said:
The problem is that the west is not going to let Ukraine collapse, mostly because it does not serve to let a bully be a bully.
Click to expand...
We let Afghanistan collapse. Iraq ain't doing so great either. We left the Kurds who helped fight ISIS at the mercy of Turkey.

The west doesn't exactly have a stellar track record, but maybe this time is different.
Click to expand...
Ukrainians are white. I think that is the difference
 
So german government says they know who blew up NordStream but will not disclose that information due to national security. Which means US privately admitted doing it :)

Makes you wonder who actually poisoned Navalny.
 
barbos said:
So german government says they know who blew up NordStream but will not disclose that information due to national security. Which means US privately admitted doing it :) Makes you wonder who actually poisoned Navalny.
Click to expand...
We still get nothing but rumors and speculation from you. Of course, you don't cite or support any of this with any kind of evidence. And of course, you swallow all of this unquestioningly like a good little lemming.

For what it's worth, the rumors I heard most recently was that Poland blew up Nordstream. But there is still no way for any of us to actually know anything.
 
barbos said:
So german government says they know who blew up NordStream but will not disclose that information due to national security. Which means US privately admitted doing it :)
Click to expand...

No, it just means that they don't want to give out information that could compromise their sources. There would be no advantage to the US of sabotaging NordStream, which was not even in operation, but there would be to Russia, which could be looking for excuses to cut off energy supplies during the winter while claiming not to be doing it deliberately. Everyone knows that Putin's main strategy is to weaken support for Ukraine in the Western alliance, and Germany has made itself particularly dependent on Russian energy sources.


barbos said:
Makes you wonder who actually poisoned Navalny.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows who poisoned Navalny, although you wasted a lot of time trying to deny it.
 
Seems to be bullshit.

www.wsj.com

Nord Stream Blasts Were Likely Result of Sabotage, German Probe Finds

Investigators have determined that the series of explosions along key undersea gas pipelines from Russian to Europe were likely caused by sabotage, according to German officials familiar with the probe, adding weight to similar preliminary findings by Sweden.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Only sources I can find that say Germany knows who did it are Russian shills, and don't name who exactly it was in the German government that claimed so, or when.
 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/kak-rossiya-stala-fashistskoy
Translated version. The English (transcription) version is blocked.

Very good article by a twenty year Russian diplomat.
Two points of interest for me were that sanctions imposed in 2014 did more damage to the Russian military than I gave credit for. I largely ascribed it to corruption and incompetence.
And, that Putin is more of a victim of his own propaganda than I realized. I had assumed that on some level, someone was telling him the truth. If I am to believe this article, that is not true. He was told what he wanted to hear and those people were rewarded for doing so.
I assumed Putin struck Ukraine when he did because while he may not have known how unprepared his own armed forces were, he understood Ukraine was making great strides in theirs. I now do not think this is so. Putin did not understand this.
Amazing. If Putin’s regime falls during this grand fuck up, and I believe it will, it won’t be so much because of the losses in Ukraine as it will be due to it collapsing under the weight of its own propaganda.

But what comes next?
 
DrZoidberg said:
Jayjay said:
Jarhyn said:
The problem is that the west is not going to let Ukraine collapse, mostly because it does not serve to let a bully be a bully.
Click to expand...
We let Afghanistan collapse. Iraq ain't doing so great either. We left the Kurds who helped fight ISIS at the mercy of Turkey.

The west doesn't exactly have a stellar track record, but maybe this time is different.
Click to expand...
Ukrainians are white. I think that is the difference
Click to expand...
I don't agree. First off, Afghanistan is really a civil war. Sure there are outsiders stirring up the sides. But it's a war between two tribes that goes back hundreds of years. Ukraine is being attacked by an outside country that is bullying it. Secondly, the invasion could easily (and probably will in the future) spread to other countries in Europe and could include Nato countries. Afghan war isn't going to spread. There is tremendous deal fatigue in Afghanistan. The US tried to help in that country for 20 years. Ukraine war is fresh. Our Afghan allies folded like a cheap suit as soon as the west left. Ukrainian fighters are fighting. If we stopped supporting Ukraine, they'd continue fighting because they have no choice. Ukrainians are fighting for their homes against a brutal invader. Afghans are fighting their neighbor in order to see whose religion should rule. The two wars are just totally different.
 
TV and credit cards said:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/kak-rossiya-stala-fashistskoy
Translated version. The English (transcription) version is blocked.

Very good article by a twenty year Russian diplomat.
Two points of interest for me were that sanctions imposed in 2014 did more damage to the Russian military than I gave credit for. I largely ascribed it to corruption and incompetence.
And, that Putin is more of a victim of his own propaganda than I realized. I had assumed that on some level, someone was telling him the truth. If I am to believe this article, that is not true. He was told what he wanted to hear and those people were rewarded for doing so.
I assumed Putin struck Ukraine when he did because while he may not have known how unprepared his own armed forces were, he understood Ukraine was making great strides in theirs. I now do not think this is so. Putin did not understand this.
Amazing. If Putin’s regime falls during this grand fuck up, and I believe it will, it won’t be so much because of the losses in Ukraine as it will be due to it collapsing under the weight of its own propaganda.

But what comes next?
Click to expand...

Thanks. I am familiar with the story of this diplomat, who quit the Russian foreign service. His perspective on the war and Putin is very insightful, especially since he has had intimate knowledge of Russian politics and policies. You gave a link that led to the Russian article, but here is a direct link to the official English translation:

The Sources of Russian Misconduct​


It is interesting that the translator decided to exercise what I regard as unnecessary changes that don't really change the substance of the article, but they do modify its tone a little. For example, the title of the Russian original should translate as "How Russia Became Fascist" (Как Россия стала фашистской), but the translator thought "The Russian Sources of Misconduct" was a bit less dramatic. Also, less attention-grabbing.
 
We tend to think of this war as confined to Ukraine, but it is really a war between Russia and Europe--a war whose violent side has not spread beyond the borders of Ukraine yet. And one could, of course, include the entire Western alliance, because Europe is a vital part of that. The main weapons used on the nonviolent fronts are primarily economic and diplomatic. The sabotage of the Russian pipeline in the Baltic was part of Russia's economic front, as it seeks to cut off the delivery of essential LNG supplies. The defensive reaction has been to ship LNG into Europe, which is not prepared for that form of delivery. Here is an article from the front lines of that economic war:

Dozens of LNG-laden ships queue off Europe's coasts unable to unload​

 
Kind of a tangent, but interesting video showing how borders changed over time. Noticed there was a small Ukraine around 1610, but got taken over, only to appear again in 1904, swallowed again, appearing once more in 1990

 
Copernicus said:
We tend to think of this war as confined to Ukraine, but it is really a war between Russia and Europe--a war whose violent side has not spread beyond the borders of Ukraine yet. And one could, of course, include the entire Western alliance, because Europe is a vital part of that. The main weapons used on the nonviolent fronts are primarily economic and diplomatic. The sabotage of the Russian pipeline in the Baltic was part of Russia's economic front, as it seeks to cut off the delivery of essential LNG supplies. The defensive reaction has been to ship LNG into Europe, which is not prepared for that form of delivery. Here is an article from the front lines of that economic war:

Dozens of LNG-laden ships queue off Europe's coasts unable to unload​

Click to expand...
It's not so much about this war, than a longer term plan of Putin to make Europe reliant on Russian energy. Before the war, Germany got 55% of its natural gas from Russia. Sure, they could have diversified, but who's going to invest billions of euros to build LNG terminals, which might never recoup the investment?

The root cause of the problem is that in Europe and west in general, the energy industry is controller by private companies, whereas in Russia they're state controlled and are capable of longer term planning and also using energy as a political tool: friendly governments get discounts, unfriendly ones are threatened with cutting off the deliveries. Ironically, only way to shield from this is to more socialism. In retrospect, German government should have made a political decision that they will build those terminals for more expensive LNG and cap the Russian gas deliveries even if it doesn't make economic sense.

There are similar risky dependencies to China for solar panels, rare Earth minerals, and whatever other resources.
 
This is what happens when Conservative governments run things. They think all things remain the same, we don't need to adapt in the future. It is cheap and good now.
 
General Surovikin and the occupation authorities seem to be prepping Russian public into atrocities in Kherson:



If Russia withdraws, it means they will at minimum turn the city into rubble with artillery from the left bank. And the suggestions that Ukraine might blow up the dam indicate that Russia intends to do it and blame Ukraine.

Still better than being under Russian occupation though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom