Ukraine

[BillyStubbsTears]

And...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.

I discussed that. You simply had a rant about how bad it is for Russia using figures direct from the US which is heavily invested financially and politically. And whose figures don't match what the EU stated before being censored. Bit of the bleeding obvious going on there don't ya think?

Simple questions:

A)Did Putin expect this to be a simple operation to walk into Kyiv last Feb, eliminate Zelensky and put his own man in power?

B) If you're answer to the above is "yes" then this was a disastrous mistake. If it is "no", why did he send in light forces to Kyiv that were easily kicked out?

C) Yes or no. Is the resulting war seeing the worst Russian losses since WWII?

No obscuring the question with your Russian propaganda about supposed Ukrainian losses. That's irrelevant to the questions above.

When you're ready BRR.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST, it's Russia not Putin. Whilst Putin obviously has a big part of the say, to always say "Putin" is playing rhetorical propaganda games. Be bigger.

Russia took the territories it needed in the south, and pushed Ukraine back in the East. Clearly, that is Russians minimum needs, and where it put its strongest forces.

Kyiv would have been nice too, as would a total Ukraine capitulation. So, it was worth a shot, plus as indicated above, it was a very effective distraction to action elsewhere.

Yes, these do seem to be the biggest losses since WW2. Though if you're looking at the real stats,  having a perspective, not trying to play rhetorical nonsense games, Ukraine is roughly on par with Afghanistan, absolutely nowhere near WW2.

[Branton Red]

Kyiv would have been nice too, as would a total Ukraine capitulation.

And a return to the old Soviet Union would be just lovely!

[Colin C No.3]

BBR, it’s Christmas.

Do you fancy a kick about in ‘no mans land’?

You could stick Bentley Bullet between the posts, his favourite position & Axholme Lion on the far right, his natural position.

schastlivogo Rozhdestva.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hang on a minute.

You've been telling us for months that this war was caused by NATO and the EU forcing Putin[1] into an invasion to neutralise Ukraine as a threat to Russia. Surely, that is best achieved by having a Russia-friendly Govt in Kyiv. Which should really have been an easy task if, as you've suggested for months, the Kyiv Govt is an unpopular usurper.

Now you are saying that the overthrow of Zelensky would have been a "nice to have" and the real aim was a territory grab.

But it's good to see you finally accept what the rest of us have been saying from the start. That's progress.

Only...how is it then in the Russian strategic interest to run away from half the land in the south and east that they stole in earlier 2022? Why on earth spend so much time, money, men and materiel trying to seize Kharkiv and Kherson, if you're going to choose to just give them back once you encounter a bit of a fightback? And in giving them back, leave yourself badly exposed to a resumption of Ukranian attacks when the winter has ended?

Your position now seems to be:

Russia did indeed engage in an illegal land grab as it's war aim in the south and east.

Russia has freely given up half the land that it took.

Everything is fine and Russia is winning.

Regarding Afghanistan, this is really nothing remotely like that war. There the Russians were dealing with a lightly armed insurgency. They lost 15,000 troops killed in 10 years. In Ukraine they are fighting a modern, heavily armed force in what is a small scale equivalent of the World War peer-to-peer fighting. They have had at least 15,000 fatalities in 10 MONTHS.


[1] "Putin" not "Russia". If you don't understand the extent to which Putin WAS the Russian Government by Feb 2022, you really should do yourself a favour and stop publicly displaying your ignorance.

[Bentley Bullet]

BBR, it’s Christmas.

Do you fancy a kick about in ‘no mans land’?

You could stick Bentley Bullet between the posts, his favourite position & Axholme Lion on the far right, his natural position.

schastlivogo Rozhdestva.

I suppose you'd live up to your name and be Colin C No.3.

Left-back, with the women and children.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Hang on a minute.

You've been telling us for months that this war was caused by NATO and the EU forcing Putin[1] into an invasion to neutralise Ukraine as a threat to Russia. Surely, that is best achieved by having a Russia-friendly Govt in Kyiv. Which should really have been an easy task if, as you've suggested for months, the Kyiv Govt is an unpopular usurper.

Now you are saying that the overthrow of Zelensky would have been a "nice to have" and the real aim was a territory grab.

But it's good to see you finally accept what the rest of us have been saying from the start. That's progress.

Only...how is it then in the Russian strategic interest to run away from half the land in the south and east that they stole in earlier 2022? Why on earth spend so much time, money, men and materiel trying to seize Kharkiv and Kherson, if you're going to choose to just give them back once you encounter a bit of a fightback? And in giving them back, leave yourself badly exposed to a resumption of Ukranian attacks when the winter has ended?

Your position now seems to be:

Russia did indeed engage in an illegal land grab as it's war aim in the south and east.

Russia has freely given up half the land that it took.

Everything is fine and Russia is winning.

Regarding Afghanistan, this is really nothing remotely like that war. There the Russians were dealing with a lightly armed insurgency. They lost 15,000 troops killed in 10 years. In Ukraine they are fighting a modern, heavily armed force in what is a small scale equivalent of the World War peer-to-peer fighting. They have had at least 15,000 fatalities in 10 MONTHS.


[1] "Putin" not "Russia". If you don't understand the extent to which Putin WAS the Russian Government by Feb 2022, you really should do yourself a favour and stop publicly displaying your ignorance.

Off the wall, up the bloody tree, right in the cuckoo's nest reply there BST. Lies, exaggerations,  mis quotes, lack of comprehension, square peg in a round hole.

[BobG]

But no facts, reasoning or rationale from you Bristol. You are making a habit of it these days. Abuse don't really give your cause much credence

BobH

[drfchound]

But no facts, reasoning or rationale from you Bristol. You are making a habit of it these days. Abuse don't really give your cause much credence

BobH

Has your account been hacked?

[Bristol Red Rover]

But no facts, reasoning or rationale from you Bristol. You are making a habit of it these days. Abuse don't really give your cause much credence

BobH

None from you either, did you not notice? As for BST, will reply fully later as I nearly always do. I started off chats here fully respectful, tho others, BST consistently,  pile on the abuse, some of it beyond what should be allowed on any forum, so I give it back sometimes. Happy?

[Bristol Red Rover]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)

[Bristol Red Rover]

Russia has left territory that would have resulted in bad losses to its military. Don't think that's half what they took. Exaggerating are you? And not clocking any military or political noise.

[Bristol Red Rover]

For sure this is nothing like Afghanistan. The people, the culture, the topography, etc etc is different. The US funding of the opposition is the same, tho in Ukraine many times more money being leant - as opposed to being given. I don't think the US leant money to the Mujahideen?

So yep, more losses, more shells, more armour,  but then it's band on Russian borderland,  Afghanistan wasn't.

All the above been over before.

[Filo]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)

Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?

[Not Now Kato]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)
 
So, what exactly was the plan? And why isn’t it working?

[Bristol Red Rover]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)

Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?

To still have some territory after the negotiation?

[Bristol Red Rover]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)
 
So, what exactly was the plan? And why isn’t it working?

I suggested why already.

What are you thinking isn't working?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.

You've told us all year that Putin's War was an essentially defensive operation which he was forced into because of the threat of Ukraine becoming Westernised.

Now you're regularly saying that Putin's aim has been to grab territory from Ukraine. And that he's winning in that War.

Which one is it?

It can't be both. Because if Putin doesn't destroy Ukraine as a functioning state, his invasion had guaranteed that the majority of Ukraine will be Western-looking for the test of the century.

And do stop this b*llocks about Ukrainian people being split 50/50 between West and Russian supporting blocs. You know the numbers were nothing like that, even before Putin invaded and tried to destroy the civilian infrastructure of the country (which is scarcely going to endear him is it - Dear Russia lovers: I will seal our relationship by destroying your electricity supply in the depth of winter. Love. Vlad.)

[Filo]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)

Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?

To still have some territory after the negotiation?

Why would a Sovereign Country want to negotiate giving up territory to an aggressor?

[Filo]

Looks like they’ve been killing their own people again


“ Russian politician who criticised Putin's war in Ukraine dies in India
By Neville Lazarus, India reporter
Russian citizens Pavel Antov and Vladimir Bidenov have died in unusual circumstances in a hotel in Odisha, India. The two were co-travellers and died two days apart.
Mr Antov, 65, was a lawmaker and had recently criticised Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war in Ukraine but soon retracted it.
He died after falling from the third floor of his hotel. He was found lying in a pool of blood outside the hotel on Saturday 24 December.
Police said they suspected it to be suicide as he was reportedly depressed after his friend's death.
Mr Bidenov had been found lying unconscious in his room on Thursday 22 December and was declared dead by doctors at the district hospital.
The Russian embassy said Odisha police have not yet found any criminal link in the death of two of its citizen at the same hotel in the state.
Local media reports speculated of a hit-job as a number of critics of President Putin have died in similar ways in Russia.”

[ravenrover]

Peace talks in Feb according to BBC news this morning !!?

[Bristol Red Rover]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)

Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?

To still have some territory after the negotiation?

Why would a Sovereign Country want to negotiate giving up territory to an aggressor?

To have some territory left after negotiation. As its going, quite possibly they'd have none.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR.

You've told us all year that Putin's War was an essentially defensive operation which he was forced into because of the threat of Ukraine becoming Westernised.

Now you're regularly saying that Putin's aim has been to grab territory from Ukraine. And that he's winning in that War.

Which one is it?

It can't be both. Because if Putin doesn't destroy Ukraine as a functioning state, his invasion had guaranteed that the majority of Ukraine will be Western-looking for the test of the century.

And do stop this b*llocks about Ukrainian people being split 50/50 between West and Russian supporting blocs. You know the numbers were nothing like that, even before Putin invaded and tried to destroy the civilian infrastructure of the country (which is scarcely going to endear him is it - Dear Russia lovers: I will seal our relationship by destroying your electricity supply in the depth of winter. Love. Vlad.)

So, first Donbas. People there being attacked largely Russian - protect them, define the borders. Tick - well almost.

NATO knocking at Russias gates, destroy Ukraine's military - ongoing.

In the process secure the Crimea with the land bridge. Tick.

Is it that hard for you to grasp?

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR.

You've told us all year that Putin's War was an essentially defensive operation which he was forced into because of the threat of Ukraine becoming Westernised.

Now you're regularly saying that Putin's aim has been to grab territory from Ukraine. And that he's winning in that War.

Which one is it?

It can't be both. Because if Putin doesn't destroy Ukraine as a functioning state, his invasion had guaranteed that the majority of Ukraine will be Western-looking for the test of the century.

And do stop this b*llocks about Ukrainian people being split 50/50 between West and Russian supporting blocs. You know the numbers were nothing like that, even before Putin invaded and tried to destroy the civilian infrastructure of the country (which is scarcely going to endear him is it - Dear Russia lovers: I will seal our relationship by destroying your electricity supply in the depth of winter. Love. Vlad.)

As for the voting, do check out the facts, always helpful when discussing the real world. And include Donbas in that - largely not included in the last elections.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR.

You've told us all year that Putin's War was an essentially defensive operation which he was forced into because of the threat of Ukraine becoming Westernised.

Now you're regularly saying that Putin's aim has been to grab territory from Ukraine. And that he's winning in that War.

Which one is it?

It can't be both. Because if Putin doesn't destroy Ukraine as a functioning state, his invasion had guaranteed that the majority of Ukraine will be Western-looking for the test of the century.

And do stop this b*llocks about Ukrainian people being split 50/50 between West and Russian supporting blocs. You know the numbers were nothing like that, even before Putin invaded and tried to destroy the civilian infrastructure of the country (which is scarcely going to endear him is it - Dear Russia lovers: I will seal our relationship by destroying your electricity supply in the depth of winter. Love. Vlad.)

Several reasons for crippling the energy, one is certainly to demoralise. Then affecting military transportation.  Military repairs. Military organisation in general. Its a war in case you missed that. Ukraine trying to do the same in Russia. The US and UK, doing the same to Germany. The US did that to Iraq. NATO did it to Serbia. Etc.

[Filo]

To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.

The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.

Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion,  in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.

So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.

Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)

Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?

To still have some territory after the negotiation?

Why would a Sovereign Country want to negotiate giving up territory to an aggressor?

To have some territory left after negotiation. As its going, quite possibly they'd have none.

Why would they have none given the Russians are struggling to hold on to Territory?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.

Remind me where exactly Ukraine has been engaged in a systematic policy to destroy Russia's civilian energy grid.

I think I missed that news item.

And while you're at it, tell me which election you are prattling on about.

Then finally, you could perhaps explain in what way Russia has advanced its strategic security vis-a-vis a supposed threat from Ukraine being Westernised.

Ukraine IS going to have NATO protection into the far future. It IS going to be joining the EU. How is that anything other than a total failure of Russian strategy?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Aren't you assuming there will be a Ukraine? I doubt Russia wants its Western areas, but Poland does. A few other countries won't be adverse to taking a nibble too. And then who's going to pay back the tens of $billions owed to the USA from their aid?  Not to mention $billions lost to the US as territory they own

[Bristol Red Rover]

Why would they have none given the Russians are struggling to hold on to Territory?

Where's your info from? For some weeks, the North and South has been stable, the east has seen consistent Russian gains.

[Filo]

Why would they have none given the Russians are struggling to hold on to Territory?

Where's your info from? For some weeks, the North and South has been stable, the east has seen consistent Russian gains.

Thats your stock answer, look at the maps showingUkraine reclaimed territory, it’s winter, there’ll not be much gains on either side until better weather arrives and the ground is conducive to troop movements, I could ask the same question, where is your info from, because you seem very reluctant at times to provide any