The Ukraine / NATO/ Russia War
Anonymous
Thanks Lepp.
Having seen the images emerging from Bucha, does anyone think it's possible that this could have been manufactured by the West? Russia has claimed the US / UK were responsible. I don't, but as with most things political, I remain open minded.
Having seen the images emerging from Bucha, does anyone think it's possible that this could have been manufactured by the West? Russia has claimed the US / UK were responsible. I don't, but as with most things political, I remain open minded.
there have been cases in Syria where footage of the aftermath of a chemical weapon attack was most probably staged. that's to say the Russian envoy to the UN presented witnesses who were present and filmed at the time
also, on a slightly different vein there was a lot of drama from the body sent to investigate the site: a leading member of the team resigned alleging he had been told to keep the narrative
(I'm going by memory here, probably best to check and see for yourself)
but, you only really have to go back to the infamous war of the world's broadcast, or even the BBC spaghetti tree thing to see how easy it is to influence masses with little effort and also how susceptible people can be, and on many levels are expected to be
the Russians are also alleging bad craic going on with their pows. apparently some footage has been circulating which shows summary executions roadside
apparently the footage has been verified.
but to answer your question. most probably
also, on a slightly different vein there was a lot of drama from the body sent to investigate the site: a leading member of the team resigned alleging he had been told to keep the narrative
(I'm going by memory here, probably best to check and see for yourself)
but, you only really have to go back to the infamous war of the world's broadcast, or even the BBC spaghetti tree thing to see how easy it is to influence masses with little effort and also how susceptible people can be, and on many levels are expected to be
the Russians are also alleging bad craic going on with their pows. apparently some footage has been circulating which shows summary executions roadside
apparently the footage has been verified.
but to answer your question. most probably
First thing, the war does not officially involve NATO; it is more Ukraine (aided by NATO) vs Russia.
It seems that Putin was not happy about the existence of NATO in the light of the Soviet Union no longer currently being a thing. However the latest 'activity' in Europe has, if anything, validated and galvanised the need for NATO to exist.
Plus the war shows the ability to wage wars using public goods, and also how military aid can be gifted/traded to countries. And that even global multinational (un-national?) companies can refuse to supply to a demand; that with war the citizens on the aggressor's side may lose access to goods.
Apparently the Russian drones used and captured in the war, have been mostly produced in China and/or America. Meaning that Russia does not produce some or even most, of its military items; and that a 'total war' approach is not viable. - In turn hopefully meaning that the war will not last too long. Although the death and destruction is still a tragedy. A tragedy that had little justification to happen.
Going forwards, it is likely that countries and governments and individuals will prefer diplomacy and fostering closer ties with both allies, and those who are not necessarily enemies but are not allies!
It seems that Putin was not happy about the existence of NATO in the light of the Soviet Union no longer currently being a thing. However the latest 'activity' in Europe has, if anything, validated and galvanised the need for NATO to exist.
Plus the war shows the ability to wage wars using public goods, and also how military aid can be gifted/traded to countries. And that even global multinational (un-national?) companies can refuse to supply to a demand; that with war the citizens on the aggressor's side may lose access to goods.
Apparently the Russian drones used and captured in the war, have been mostly produced in China and/or America. Meaning that Russia does not produce some or even most, of its military items; and that a 'total war' approach is not viable. - In turn hopefully meaning that the war will not last too long. Although the death and destruction is still a tragedy. A tragedy that had little justification to happen.
Going forwards, it is likely that countries and governments and individuals will prefer diplomacy and fostering closer ties with both allies, and those who are not necessarily enemies but are not allies!
A few thoughts on the matter.
Most commentators were surprised by the ineptitude of the Russian military. I wasn’t, for one major reason: around ten years ago I read a paper published by a scientific journal on nuclear proliferation. Basically the paper stated that the US had to assist Russia with their nuclear program because it had become dysfunctional. There were launch silos that were not even guarded let alone properly maintained. The worry from the US was that the nuclear materials in these weapons would fall into terrorist hands and no longer be traceable and accounted for. It was obvious even back then that much of the Russian military budget had been redirected into making the Russian elite exceedingly wealthy. It is extremely expensive to maintain nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that Russia has the kind of nuclear arsenal that it possessed at the height of the Cold War. What I think is actually the case is that Putin has a small nuclear arsenal that he personally controls and is functional, but is only a threat to Europe. The US is beyond his reach and Russia’s conventional military is a shadow of its former self. There is no plausible scenario where Putin can threaten the US.
The difference in conventional military power between the western powers and everyone else combined is staggering. NATO could implement a no fly zone in Ukraine tomorrow and there is literally nothing Russia could do to stop it. To be clear implementing a no fly zone is a blatant act of war, it involves destroying all opposition air power and surface to air missiles and other assets. The reason NATO has not implemented a no fly zone is that the US doesn’t want to, not because they are worried about nuclear retaliation. It makes far more strategic sense to weaken Russia over time without becoming personally involved.
Whether individual events were staged or real, will I think, turn out to be irrelevant. Realistically in real warfare there are real war crimes on both sides. In this particular conflict the major difference will be scale, I’ve no doubt that Russian forces are far more barbaric and Ukraine has no reason to commit war crimes, if anything they have a vested interest as being depicted as the good guys. The other difference is around state sanctioning. Ukraine won’t sanction war crimes, Putin has already directed their troops to deliberately target civilians, which is a war crime.
Most commentators were surprised by the ineptitude of the Russian military. I wasn’t, for one major reason: around ten years ago I read a paper published by a scientific journal on nuclear proliferation. Basically the paper stated that the US had to assist Russia with their nuclear program because it had become dysfunctional. There were launch silos that were not even guarded let alone properly maintained. The worry from the US was that the nuclear materials in these weapons would fall into terrorist hands and no longer be traceable and accounted for. It was obvious even back then that much of the Russian military budget had been redirected into making the Russian elite exceedingly wealthy. It is extremely expensive to maintain nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that Russia has the kind of nuclear arsenal that it possessed at the height of the Cold War. What I think is actually the case is that Putin has a small nuclear arsenal that he personally controls and is functional, but is only a threat to Europe. The US is beyond his reach and Russia’s conventional military is a shadow of its former self. There is no plausible scenario where Putin can threaten the US.
The difference in conventional military power between the western powers and everyone else combined is staggering. NATO could implement a no fly zone in Ukraine tomorrow and there is literally nothing Russia could do to stop it. To be clear implementing a no fly zone is a blatant act of war, it involves destroying all opposition air power and surface to air missiles and other assets. The reason NATO has not implemented a no fly zone is that the US doesn’t want to, not because they are worried about nuclear retaliation. It makes far more strategic sense to weaken Russia over time without becoming personally involved.
Whether individual events were staged or real, will I think, turn out to be irrelevant. Realistically in real warfare there are real war crimes on both sides. In this particular conflict the major difference will be scale, I’ve no doubt that Russian forces are far more barbaric and Ukraine has no reason to commit war crimes, if anything they have a vested interest as being depicted as the good guys. The other difference is around state sanctioning. Ukraine won’t sanction war crimes, Putin has already directed their troops to deliberately target civilians, which is a war crime.
"First thing, the war does not officially involve NATO; it is more Ukraine (aided by NATO) vs Russia.
It seems that Putin was not happy about the existence of NATO in the light of the Soviet Union no longer currently being a thing. However the latest 'activity' in Europe has, if anything, validated and galvanised the need for NATO to exist."
it's an interesting perspective.
NATO has expanded 16 times on or around the Russian border having promised not to expand once. as I understand it, the Russians looked for legally binding security NATO would not seek to expand further (into Ukraine) towards the end of last year
it was not forthcoming, in fact the opposite could be said to have happened. and so we have this war.
It seems that Putin was not happy about the existence of NATO in the light of the Soviet Union no longer currently being a thing. However the latest 'activity' in Europe has, if anything, validated and galvanised the need for NATO to exist."
it's an interesting perspective.
NATO has expanded 16 times on or around the Russian border having promised not to expand once. as I understand it, the Russians looked for legally binding security NATO would not seek to expand further (into Ukraine) towards the end of last year
it was not forthcoming, in fact the opposite could be said to have happened. and so we have this war.
Anonymous
There is a general feeling that NATO are central to all this. Culled these words from elsewhere.
"In reality, the process started when NATO guaranteed Ukraine protection in exchange for decommissioning the Soviet nuclear arsenal which Ukraine was gifted when the USSR folded.
Today, right now, NATO has military personnel advising and devising strategy in Ukraine. You’d call it a secret or proxy war if the US president hadn’t said out loud, in front of millions of people, that he has regime change on his mind.
I might wonder what anyone would have to say or do to convince you that this is effectively NATO’s fight, if the president of America actually telling you live on television doesn’t shift your needle."
Hmm. Still consider Putin to be a blast from a Tsarist past. He's a dangerous autocrat. Mind you, the World is over ran with them.
"In reality, the process started when NATO guaranteed Ukraine protection in exchange for decommissioning the Soviet nuclear arsenal which Ukraine was gifted when the USSR folded.
Today, right now, NATO has military personnel advising and devising strategy in Ukraine. You’d call it a secret or proxy war if the US president hadn’t said out loud, in front of millions of people, that he has regime change on his mind.
I might wonder what anyone would have to say or do to convince you that this is effectively NATO’s fight, if the president of America actually telling you live on television doesn’t shift your needle."
Hmm. Still consider Putin to be a blast from a Tsarist past. He's a dangerous autocrat. Mind you, the World is over ran with them.
As a historical side-note, there is precedence of Russia being bested by the underdog. The Battle of Tsushima in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese war, was a Japanese victory and saw Japan elevated to the status of a significant power, while the Russian empire was humbled and lost prestige.
The modern parallel and lesson, which always seems to fall on deaf ears through the years, is to never underestimate your enemy. The strive to regain power/prestige and a sense of victory will likely push Russian forces to become more desperate and underhanded. Which when captured by social media will lead to Russia further sliding back in its level of respect with the world, possibly leading to a cultural 'death spiral'. -Where Russia as a state is seen as weak and wages war to win the respect and land, only to lose and suffer economic and political sanctions, leading to it looking to be regressing. And so on and so forth, until the people have enough or the State changes dramatically to consolidated and improve what it has, without cracking heads to make people obey.
Or maybe none of this. There is the hope that for current generations, this will be the only major war that occurs.
The modern parallel and lesson, which always seems to fall on deaf ears through the years, is to never underestimate your enemy. The strive to regain power/prestige and a sense of victory will likely push Russian forces to become more desperate and underhanded. Which when captured by social media will lead to Russia further sliding back in its level of respect with the world, possibly leading to a cultural 'death spiral'. -Where Russia as a state is seen as weak and wages war to win the respect and land, only to lose and suffer economic and political sanctions, leading to it looking to be regressing. And so on and so forth, until the people have enough or the State changes dramatically to consolidated and improve what it has, without cracking heads to make people obey.
Or maybe none of this. There is the hope that for current generations, this will be the only major war that occurs.
Anonymous
Have read theories of "crisis actors" who are playing the part of slaughtered Ukraine citizens. Just can't buy into this. Much conjecture as to the might of the Russian military machine? God only knows. As with most wars, it's the ordinary working class populace who suffer the most.
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous
Not sure how I feel about the two Brits sentenced to death in Donetsk. I know that during the (insane) Falklands War, a small group of Americans fighting alongside the Argentines were clandestinely executed. My school friend's Dad was a Para. Stating the obvious, war is ugly.
