Ukraine

[Bristol Red Rover]

You still swallowing this nonsense that Russia is systematically destroying the Ukranian forces?

And that the addition of 300,000 barely trained, unequipped and unsupplied amateurs to the front line is going to tip the balance, when the cream of Russia's professional soldiery as been routed?

Or have they been routed? Presumably you are sticking to the line that Kharkiv and Kherson have been two planned, strategic withdrawals?

See what I wrote.

What Ukraine v Russian armour and manpower losses do you think happened in Kherson and Kharkiv?

Where do you get the info from that says the mobilised Russians are untrained, unequipped and unsupplied? Does seem like a mishmosh of Zelensky blah blah blah you're regurgitating.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.

1) Russia's mobilisation plans allow for 2 months from sign up to front line. Remember, their professionals with all their top equipment and years of training shite it and ran from Izyum, Kupyansk and Lyman. What do your Kremlin sources think Yakutsk taxi drivers are going to do more effectively.

2) The key change of momentum in this war was the insertion of HIMARS into the fray. They are systematically destroying Russian stores up to 25 miles behind the front line, and picking off supply routes for the equipment that does survive. Russia has absolutely nothing comparable. Which is why Ukraine is able to supply its attacks, and why the Russian front line has collapsed in numerous places.

But yeah. It's all propaganda.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR.

1) Russia's mobilisation plans allow for 2 months from sign up to front line. Remember, their professionals with all their top equipment and years of training shite it and ran from Izyum, Kupyansk and Lyman. What do your Kremlin sources think Yakutsk taxi drivers are going to do more effectively.

2) The key change of momentum in this war was the insertion of HIMARS into the fray. They are systematically destroying Russian stores up to 25 miles behind the front line, and picking off supply routes for the equipment that does survive. Russia has absolutely nothing comparable. Which is why Ukraine is able to supply its attacks, and why the Russian front line has collapsed in numerous places.

But yeah. It's all propaganda.

You sound confused. The mobilisation is for people already trained.

HIMARS did give Ukraine something where it had nothing. But even before then, Ukraine had around 3 times the troops. But like you say, taxi drivers don't cut it.

[River Don]

We know the Russian mobilisation is not so focussed. Protesters handed their draft papers. Drafting stations at the borders, picking up those trying to flee. State employees handed draft papers. These blokes aren't trained, many aren't motivated at all.

[SydneyRover]

mobilisation, the new troops will still be under the command of those leaders that are left after many have been killed, the leaders that remain are obviously not very good and are short of modern equipment and supplies. Stuck between advancing Ukraine forces and a political leadership that doesn't give a shit about their lives.

[BobG]

That's simply nit picking Bristol. It shows the weakness of the argument you want to make.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.

1) Russia's mobilisation plans allow for 2 months from sign up to front line. Remember, their professionals with all their top equipment and years of training shite it and ran from Izyum, Kupyansk and Lyman. What do your Kremlin sources think Yakutsk taxi drivers are going to do more effectively.

2) The key change of momentum in this war was the insertion of HIMARS into the fray. They are systematically destroying Russian stores up to 25 miles behind the front line, and picking off supply routes for the equipment that does survive. Russia has absolutely nothing comparable. Which is why Ukraine is able to supply its attacks, and why the Russian front line has collapsed in numerous places.

But yeah. It's all propaganda.

You sound confused. The mobilisation is for people already trained.

HIMARS did give Ukraine something where it had nothing. But even before then, Ukraine had around 3 times the troops. But like you say, taxi drivers don't cut it.

Trained as what? They are reservists who may or may not have had limited experience in previous conflicts, but who have no experience whatsoever in the intense peer-to-peer mechanised warfare going on in Ukraine. Russia hasn't been involved in a large scale ground war of any intensity since 2002 in Chechnya, so no-one under 40 has much experience of ground war. And even that was a highly asymmetric campaign of tanks and artillery and airpower vs insurgents.

And as I keep saying - Russia's elite professional army has been stopped everywhere, routed in Kharkhiv and forced into a rapid retreat in Kherson. Why, exactly, do you think reservists are going to do better?

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST you keep saying they are untrained. Now you are saying they are inexperienced in combat. Which is it?

It's well known that the Russians have been massively outnumbered, more so of recent. There can be a discussion about why they managed better in the past than of recent - HIMARS, more trained Ukraine troops, Russians contracts ending, Russia preserving its troops and Ukraine sacrificing its troops, demoralisation, longer term strategy etc. Your second paragraph simply suggests Ukraine troops are better, ignoring much of the above.

[Bristol Red Rover]

That's simply nit picking Bristol. It shows the weakness of the argument you want to make.

BobG

What are you referring to?

[selby]

It is like the Japanese incursions in the second world war, as long as the Ukrainian's keep mobile outflanking the Russians punching through weak spots, and the Russian air force keep performing so poorly, the Russians are in big trouble.  The last thing the Ukrainian's need to do is get into big face to face battles.
  The Russian equipment is proving to be second class to western supplied  equipment, and their big war machine looks old fashioned being modelled on the old big battle face to face, we have more men than you ideas of warfare, while the destructive power of modern western supplied equipment in highly trained personnel's hands to a large extent nullifies this.
  Add the fact that they have lost a large percentage of their elite troops and their best equipment, it is going to be difficult for them to pull it back around, especially with the support at home on the ground losing faith in their government's ability to look beyond a nuclear attack to save itself.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The Western equipment may be better in some ways, but isn't always designed for extended use. Eg the howitzer from US having a metal in their barrel that needs replacing more often.

Also seems you're overegging one side of this, based on what? You have missed the main point that Ukraine currently has around 4 times the manpower on the front lines. Why?

[SydneyRover]

a huge amount of them are dead

[Bristol Red Rover]

Not what the why was aimed at. But read back. Many Russians reached the end of their 6 month contract extension in September, plus there were never that many there in the first place.

There's dead and wounded on both sides. Almost certainly more on the Ukraine side even just looking at the tactics.

[BobG]

Yesterday I heard some Tory junior Minister on Radio 4 telling us all that the Russian war in Ukraine is, and I quote, 'illegal'. "Putin's illegal war in Ukraine" is what he said.

So, two questions. What is a legal war? And in what way is a 'legal war' different to the current war in Ukraine?

BobG

PS. Later. I've just giggled to myself when I remembered the US invasion of Grenada. For those who might not know, our King is Grenada's head of state. His Mum was when the Yanks walked all over the place without a by your leave from us, the UN or anybody else. .

[Bristol Red Rover]

Important points. Added to that, there's the issue of economic invasion. And then just plain economic theft within a country by a dominant group. Not surprisingly, they're all "legal".

In no way is the above condoning gross brute force and bloodshed, although the above all have their roots in exactly that. They also still do cause actual death and illness.

[BobG]

Just for fun I've been googling.... How many times has the US seriously interfered in another country since 1945? The answer, staggeringly, is that 80% of all global conflicts since 1945 have involved the USA. For bedtime reading here's a partial (!) list:


1947–1949: Intervening in the Greek civil war

1947–1970: Meddling in Italy's elections and supporting anti-communism activities

1945-1949: Intervening in China’s civil war and establishing Taiwan

1948: Supporting anti-government forces in Costa Rica's civil war

1949–1953: Supporting anti-communism activities in Albania

1949: Staging a coup in Syria (it was CIA’s first coup)

1950–1953: Korean War

1952: Intervening in the Egyptian Revolution of 1952

1953: Orchestrated a coup in Iran and overthrew the democratically elected leader

1954: Invaded Guatemala and installed a puppet

1956–1957: Plotting a coup in Syria

1957–1959: Supporting a coup in Indonesia

1958: Creating a crisis in Lebanon

1960–1961: Supporting a coup in the Congo

1960: Meddling in Laos’ reforms

1961: Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba

1961–1975: Supporting civil war and OPIUM TRADE in Laos (look up “Air America”)

1961–1964: Supporting anti-government activities in Brazil

1963: Supporting civil strife in Iraq

1963: Supporting riots in Ecuador

1963–1975: Vietnam War

1964: Intervening in Congo’s rebellion (and bombing)

1965–1966: Intervening in Dominica's civil war

1965–1967: Installing, arming and aiding fascist Indonesian military government’s massacre of communists (2-3 million killed)

1966: Engineering an insurgency in Ghana

1966–1969: Creating conflicts in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which is a region on the Korean peninsula that demarcates North Korea from South Korea

1966–1967: Supporting an insurgency in Bolivia

1967: Intervening in the change of the Greek government

1967–1975: Intervening in Cambodia's civil war

1970: Meddling in Oman's domestic affairs

1970–1973: Aided a military coup in Chile (overthrew democratically elected and popular progressive leader, Salvador Allende)

1970–1973: Orchestrating a coup in Cambodia

1971: Supporting a coup in Bolivia

1972–1975: Assisting anti-government forces in Iraq

1976: Supporting a coup in Argentina

1976–1992: Intervening in Angola's domestic affairs

1977–1988: Supporting a coup in Pakistan

1979–1993: Supporting anti-government forces in Cambodia

1979–1989: Arming, funding, training the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. This led to Al Qaeda and the largest network of Islamic terrorist groups in the world.

1979–1989: Used Saddam Hussein to wage a proxy war against Iraq. Funded and armed Saddam for ten years.

1980–1989: Financed anti-government Solidarity trade union in Poland

1980–1992: Meddling in El Salvador's civil war

1981: Attacking Libya in Gulf of Sidra

1981–1982: Engineering regime change in Chad

1982–1984: Participating in a multilateral intervention in Lebanon

1982–1989: Supporting anti-government forces in Nicaragua (the U.S. armed fascists, death squads, drug lords etc.)

1983: Invading Grenada

1986: Invading Gulf of Sidra, Libya

1986: Bombing Libya

1988: Shooting down an Iranian airliner

1988: Sending troops to Honduras

1989: Attacking Libya in Tobruk

1989: Intervening in the Philippines' domestic affairs

1989–1990: Invading Panama

1990–1991: Persian Gulf War, Part 1

1991: Intervening in Haiti's elections

1991–2003: Leading the enforcement action to establish a no-fly zone in Iraq

1992–1995: Intervening in Somalia's civil war for the first time

1992–1995: Intervening in the Bosnian War

1994–1995: Sending troops to Haiti

1996: Supporting a coup in Iraq

1997: Sending troops to Albania

1997: Sending troops to Sierra Leone

1998–1999: Waging the Kosovo War

1998: Launching cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan

1998–1999: Sending troops to Kenya and Tanzania

2001–present: War on Afghanistan

2002: Sending troops to Côte d'Ivoire

2003: Orchestrating color revolution in Georgia and installing a pro-US government

2003–present: Iraq War, Part 2

2004–now: Inciting wars between Pakistan and Afghanistan in their contiguous areas

2004: Orchestrating color revolution in Ukraine and installing a pro-US government

2006–2007: Supporting Fatah, a Palestinian political and military organization, in overthrowing the elected government of Hamas

2007–present: Intervening in Somalia's civil war for the second time

2009: Supporting a coup in Honduras

2011: Supporting anti-government forces in Libya

2011–present: Arming, funding, training jihadists, Al Qaeda, and “moderate rebels” in Syria. Occasionally bombing Syria. And occupying the oil-rich parts of Syria.

2011–2017: Carrying out military operations in Uganda

2014: Orchestrating a color revolution in Ukraine and overthrowing a democratically elected leader.

2014–present: Leading the intervention actions in Iraq

2015–now: Arming, directing Saudi Arabia's participation in Yemen's civil war

2017-2019: Attempting regime change in Venezuela

2012-2020: Funding, orchestrating riots in Hong Kong.

2019: Supporting a military coup in Bolivia

1990s-now: Funding Uyghur separatists and trying to break the Xinjiang province off China.

What's worse though is that if you looked up a similar list of British actions during any period you like in the19th century, it would be as bad if not worse.

BobG

[ravenrover]

BRR so the day the Russians contract is up he just packs his bags on the front line and says see ya?

[scawsby steve]

Good old Biden, as f*cking useless as ever. Instead of saying what HE's going to do, as President of the USA, he's telling US, who can do nothing about it, that we're on the brink of Armeggedon.

In doing so, he's just sent a message to Putin, the bully, that the whole of the West is terrified of him.

Well done, Joe.

[wilts rover]

Good old Biden, as f*cking useless as ever. Instead of saying what HE's going to do, as President of the USA, he's telling US, who can do nothing about it, that we're on the brink of Armeggedon.

In doing so, he's just sent a message to Putin, the bully, that the whole of the West is terrified of him.

Well done, Joe.

Not quite sure - if you attempt to launch a nuclear missile we will obliterate your country - is sending a message to Putin that you are frightened. Or do you have a different meaning of Armageddon (the end of days) to me?

No NATO country is going to launch a first strike. There's a reason it's called a nuclear deterrent.

[tyke1962]

Russian voice from the frontline , pretty disturbing stuff .

https://youtu.be/S-zNgNxAnzA

[BobG]

Thank you Tyke. Horrible. But then, those who start wars never worry about things like that do they? (And I am not pointing fingers at anybody at all with that comment. I am speaking in a very general sense)

BobG

[scawsby steve]

Good old Biden, as f*cking useless as ever. Instead of saying what HE's going to do, as President of the USA, he's telling US, who can do nothing about it, that we're on the brink of Armeggedon.

In doing so, he's just sent a message to Putin, the bully, that the whole of the West is terrified of him.

Well done, Joe.

Not quite sure - if you attempt to launch a nuclear missile we will obliterate your country - is sending a message to Putin that you are frightened. Or do you have a different meaning of Armageddon (the end of days) to me?

No NATO country is going to launch a first strike. There's a reason it's called a nuclear deterrent.

It seems that Macron, and people commenting on the press previews, don't agree with you, Wilts. They think his comments were ill thought out and unwise.

I've asked before, if Putin is defeated and humiliated, what is the endgame in all that? Because at the moment, all I'm hearing is soundbites.

[BobG]

Armageddon, however you cut it, is fairly unpleasant for everybody.

BobG

[andy didcott]

 Very sad listening to that from the frontline, got to feel not just for the Ukrainians but also for  these Russians being sent there to almost certain death, I’m sure they don’t know what awaits them and they don’t have much of a choice in going there.

[wilts rover]

Good old Biden, as f*cking useless as ever. Instead of saying what HE's going to do, as President of the USA, he's telling US, who can do nothing about it, that we're on the brink of Armeggedon.

In doing so, he's just sent a message to Putin, the bully, that the whole of the West is terrified of him.

Well done, Joe.

Not quite sure - if you attempt to launch a nuclear missile we will obliterate your country - is sending a message to Putin that you are frightened. Or do you have a different meaning of Armageddon (the end of days) to me?

No NATO country is going to launch a first strike. There's a reason it's called a nuclear deterrent.

It seems that Macron, and people commenting on the press previews, don't agree with you, Wilts. They think his comments were ill thought out and unwise.

I've asked before, if Putin is defeated and humiliated, what is the endgame in all that? Because at the moment, all I'm hearing is soundbites.

Steve, you have been telling us for years Macron's views are wrong - now all of a sudden they are correct? Hmmm. If I remember correctly Macron went to Russia to have discussions with Putin just before the invasion and told us there wasn't going to be an invasion?

Here's your endgame:

Unless one side is obliterated - all wars end in a negotiated settlement.

Some world leaders want a settlement more than others. They want NATO to stop sending aid to Ukraine and have an agreement with Putin at any price. I think Macron spoke to him only last week.

Ukraine can't 'win'. All they can do is push Russia out of their territory - Russia will still be there - with NATO help they are not going to invade it and depose Putin and NATO are not going to be directly involved - ask Macron. Only Putin can end it.

There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy it twice over whoever 'starts' it. No-one survies a nuclear winter. If a nuclear weapon goes over a NATO border there will be Armageddon. If a nuclear weapon is used on Ukraine territory there will be pressure for NATO to act.

Russian leaders are not overthrown by outside forces - they are overthrown by their own people.

You either appese Putin - or you help Ukraine to oppose Putin. Biden is doing the later.

What do you think he should be doing and what do you think the endgame is?

[SydneyRover]

Sanna Marin: kiss .......... https://twitter.com/RikhardHusu/status/1578308226709590017?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[tyke1962]

Thank you Tyke. Horrible. But then, those who start wars never worry about things like that do they? (And I am not pointing fingers at anybody at all with that comment. I am speaking in a very general sense)

BobG

Those were my thoughts too Bob , whilst I know the Russians have committed despicable war crimes in Ukraine it won't apply to every one of them and as you say the vast majority are totally bewildered why they are in Ukraine .

Young Russian soldiers still have parents , wives , kids and are simply fodder for a tyrant who doesn't care about them .

[Filo]

The bridge from Crimea to Russia has been destroyed, no getting supplies through Crimea to the Russians now, its clear Ukraine are going for Crimea

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's not destroyed. Local damage. Could be operational again in a week to 10 days I'd have thought.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

The bridge from Crimea to Russia has been destroyed, no getting supplies through Crimea to the Russians now, its clear Ukraine are going for Crimea

Happy birthday Mr Putin!