Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Occult1 said:

I think you underestimate the great geographic importance of the Black Sea. Access to the Black Sea allows for access to the Mediterranean Sea, which is critical to trade. In the same vein, access to the Black Sea provides avenues for power projection across the region. As Russian forces secure Eastern-South Ukraine to create a buffer state and the rest of the country successfully demilitarized; they greatly reduce the NATO threat.

It will never be demilitarized, and Ukraine will never accept partition. Why do you keep lying? You're not fooling anyone. Putin has clearly stated his reasons for the invasion. He refuses to accept the perpetual dismemberment of the Soviet Union. He sees NATO facilitating the independence of the former Soviet States. He has said the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy in contemporary history. He wants it all back, Georgia, Belarus, the Baltic States, Ukraine. He wants the old Soviet Sphere of Influence in Eastern Europe back as well. He and his spokesmen have said all these things. Putin is delusional and dangerously so. Ukraine didn't go to plan. It was supposed to be a cakewalk, his yes men assured him it would be. A few days and it would be all over, Ukrainian aspirations of independence would die with a whimper. Apparently, someone forgot they weren't fighting Eastern Europeans, they were fighting Slavs who chose to fight back, Slavs fighting for their homeland. History should have told the Russians it wouldn't end easily or well. Ukrainians have superior motivation and something real and tangible to fight and die for. All those peacetime Russian soldiers have to fight and die for is Putin and a paltry paycheck. I like Russians and sincerely pity them.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[Helen of Annoy]

4 hours ago, and then said:

I'm inclined to think it's extremely dangerous and provocative but I think it was Putin's answer to a greatly diminished military that everyone knew couldn't go toe to toe with NATO.  My point was that Putin has attempted to change the rules (MAD) that have kept the world relatively stable for decades and now we're going to see if he means to follow through with his insanity.  Our president didn't help matters today by trying to sound tough in a speech and basically taunting Putin with the idea of "regime change".  The WH rushed to back off from that but Putin will be able to use it to justify his actions and that's damned unfortunate. 

I will give you my opinion, I believe it's typical for my part of the world. I do understand some Americans have their own domestic reasons to dislike Biden, I do respect that, but I wish you'd hear me and acknowledge that typical European opinion is that Biden as POTUS today restored the US reputation. 

I will repeat: I do respect your domestic political differences. I do hope you will take into consideration that Biden restored American place in world geopolitics and hearts of Europeans, particularly Eastern Europeans. 

 

Your President's speech yesterday was exactly that, what Europeans hoped to finally hear.

It's impossible for the USA to sit out the WWIII, so the clearer the message of unity and determination, the better. Biden's message was exactly that. He understands that any concessions to Putin only embolden him.  

We're past the point where "not making Putin mad" could seem like a good idea. It's obvious since Feb 24th that it wasn't a good idea at all. If there was the firm message of Western unity before, Putin wouldn't dare to attack at all. But what was done and not done remains in the past, what matters is what will be done.    

I hold your President Biden in highest esteem since 1990's, because he said directly into Milošević's pig snout "you are a damn war criminal". (I don't doubt that was deemed "unfortunate" too, but in my opinion it was not just fortunate, it was and remains the balm on my soul.) Biden knows what's going on, he's an experienced diplomat and a direct participant of historic events that are the clue for the resolution of current situation.

 

Western unity is crucial now, as your President Biden said too. 

Let me expand that a little: you probably didn't notice that Orban (president of Hungary) refused to take side, saying that "Hungary is on Hungary's side". I still can't believe it actually happened. I thought he'll be more disingenuous that that. By looking at a map, it becomes obvious that there's an imaginary pro-Russian front, leading from Belarus, down through Hungary, though Serbia and they are hoping to get Bulgaria too. 

The devil is in that detail - there's an actual pro-Russian front cutting off that, what is supposed to be the start package of Russian bloc. It's supposed to fall on its own, while armed aggression would strike at Baltic and Poland. 

 

In short, this is definitely not the time to nitpick about domestic politics, this is the time to see the big picture and stand united. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

3 hours ago, Occult1 said:

I think you underestimate the great geographic importance of the Black Sea. Access to the Black Sea allows for access to the Mediterranean Sea, which is critical to trade. In the same vein, access to the Black Sea provides avenues for power projection across the region. As Russian forces secure Eastern-South Ukraine to create a buffer state and the rest of the country successfully demilitarized; they greatly reduce the NATO threat.

I often see the argument that Russia needs access to the Black Sea. It was used with Crimea too. Russia allways had access to the Black Sea through ports like Novorossiysk, Sochi, Tuapse, Taganrog and Sevastopol. Novorossiysk is even the largest port in Russia.

As you can see it's not a valid argument once you simply look at a map. Did you ever bother to do that ?

[CrimsonKing]

I'm sorry,but I'm getting 2 mixed messages from apparently 2 different Russia's on this site alone...

Are they the worldwide laughing stock that are losing a battle against a much smaller military?...or are they a would/could be "galactic death star" of a country capable of destroying everything in their wake?

How can they be both and the same?...really doesn't make sense if ya think about it.

Eta...drop the nuke reasoning, because everyone loses then...

Honest question,how is this Russian military supposedly losing in almost hysterical numbers going to take over all of Europe?...

@DarkHunter your very respected on here,maybe you can answer.

Edited March 27, 2022 by CrimsonKing

[+Hammerclaw]

8 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

I'm sorry,but I'm getting 2 mixed messages from apparently 2 different Russia's on this site alone...

Are they the worldwide laughing stock that are losing a battle against a much smaller military?...or are they a would/could be "galactic death star" of a country capable of destroying everything in their wake?

How can they be both and the same?...really doesn't make sense if ya think about it.

Think of their conventional forces as inept imperial stormtroopers and their nuclear weapons as the death star. 

[CrimsonKing]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Think of their conventional forces as inept imperial stormtroopers and their nuclear weapons as the death star. 

I got ya man and I can respect that answer,that's why I edited my post...

Still seeing a lot of mixed messages on here,seen a lot of laughing off of Putin's nuke threats on here aswell...

[+Hammerclaw]

29 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

I got ya man and I can respect that answer,that's why I edited my post...

Still seeing a lot of mixed messages on here,seen a lot of laughing off of Putin's nuke threats on here aswell...

Putin doesn't operate in a vacuum and if he becomes an existential threat to the clique that benefit from him being in power, he will be dealt with. One ill-advised nuclear incident could turn Russia into a nuclear wasteland and they won't risk it.

[CrimsonKing]

43 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Putin doesn't operate in a vacuum and if he becomes an existential threat to the clique that benefit from him being in power, he will be dealt with. One ill-advised nuclear incident could turn Russia into a nuclear wasteland and they won't risk it.

I hear ya,but again...outside of a nuke tossing contest,how is Russia's military capable of marching through Europe and making countries fall at there feet?

That's the fear I keep seeing on here,and yet a non NATO country equipped with mostly defensive weapons is kicking the Russians ass in one post,and the next all of Europe is under threat of being conquered by these same bunch of screwups if..."so and so isn't done!"

You kinda see what I'm saying?

Russia can't take a NATO country and hold it,not even a tiny one without the help of another major power backing them...not with the s**" show we are being told their military is.

Again nukes are out of the equation,but if one drops anywhere in this kind of situation the whole world goes on high alert!

How does Russia even "win" a tiny NATO Baltic state with threats?...they don't.

Again this military is supposedly taking incredible loses against a non NATO country...how are they possibly going to take over Europe?

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass,I actually respect your opinions man...but you didn't answer my question.

@Helen of Annoy I understand you and your countries problems from the past,hell even in your lifetime,but outside of the nuke option you've even seemed to agree and have some laughs at Russia's antique army...yet on another hand you think their junk army is going to take over all of Europe,how so?

Edited March 27, 2022 by CrimsonKing

[+razman]

7 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Russia claims 1,351 dead and 3,825 injured according to latest update.

That seems more realistic.

The other day a Russian news station had a figure more around 10,000 , but it was then retracted right away. Just something i read though , so who knows what is fake or real at this point.

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, CrimsonKing said:

@Helen of Annoy I understand you and your countries problems from the past,hell even in your lifetime,but outside of the nuke option you've even seemed to agree and have some laughs at Russia's antique army...yet on another hand you think their junk army is going to take over all of Europe,how so?

Oh, no! I do not think Russia has any chance of taking over anything. They're on their way to geopolitic hell of poverty, irrelevance and internal conflicts. (Unless they save themselves by an urgent change of the regime.)

I do expect Putin to destroy Russia trying to take over Ukraine. He'll probably open more fronts (using both special, cold war-like methods and classic hot war type of conflict methods), to try diverting aid and focus away from Ukraine. Not going to work. The West is perfectly capable of paying attention to complex situations and has resources to respond to multiple fronts challenges.

While Russian logistics is hilariously outdated, corrupt and chaotic, American one can routinely reach any corner of the world, for prolonged periods of time. (That's equally important as having plenty of benevolent psychopaths/berserkers carrying out the high risk type of operations.)  

 

What is dangerous about Putin are not his ridiculous dreams of establishing the "Russian world". His Gypsy caravan type of disorganization can't possibly hold any area. (No offence meant for the honourable Gypsy caravans that are a part of European tradition too.) Ukraine will soon show how proper counter-offensive looks like. (I can already hear Russians moaning they're the real victims there.)

The danger is in Putin's lack of honour. His army deliberately aims civilians and civilian infrastructure. It's not an anomaly, it's a part of their doctrine. Genocide is not a side-effect of Russian "liberation", genocide is their main goal. 

While he can't hold any part of Europe, he can and will inflict maximum damage on civilians. 

His acts of aggression can and will disrupt economies of attacked countries, his propaganda and the traitors he bought already do and will continue to sabotage own countries.  

He can't possibly win (or stay in power much longer, not because of Americans, it's his own doing). But he can, he does and he will continue to murder civilians and ruin infrastructure. Today in Ukraine, tomorrow in any other European country.

 

And the nukes. He won't be allowed to use nukes, but if he manages to make it happen - he definitely absolutely wants to, he's just afraid to do it - the resulting answer (doesn't have to be nuclear at all, or at first) will solve the problem of aggressive Russia for the next few centuries. 

The reason why he's afraid to use the first nuke is precisely because he knows that would be the end of this charade.  

[Helen of Annoy]

18 minutes ago, razman said:

The other day a Russian news station had a figure more around 10,000 , but it was then retracted right away. Just something i read though , so who knows what is fake or real at this point.

Every liquidated Russian general (plus a pile of colonels and commanders and whatnot) was confirmed. I'd take that as a guidance towards the real numbers of Russian losses. If Ukraine reported correct number of offed generals, they likely report the correct number of cannon fodder too. 

Today Russian media showed 8 guys (with 4 legs in total) receiving medals. It means that Russia can't hide anymore they've got dead and wounded, they'll change the narrative and use their dead and maimed as a tool to instigate hatred against Ukrainians. 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Helen of Annoy

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Russia claims 1,351 dead and 3,825 injured according to latest update.

That seems more realistic.

No, I think that number is ALSO sketchy on the low end.  There are at least 2000 confirmed armored vehicles destroyed and most of those crews DRT - DIED RIGHT THERE.  I don't think the modern anti-armor weapons leave many alive.  

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

A buffer zone between what, NATO and Russia? Most of Russia and it's running dog, Belarus, border NATO, sans "buffer zone", comrade. That may soon be all of its western border with the inclusion of Finland into NATO. So, let's dispense with the buffer zone B.S.

Russian State News Published an Article Saying Russia Defeated Ukraine (businessinsider.com)

Just spitballin' here, but I'd say Ukraine is going to have a more capable, better-equipped fighting force at the end of this adventure than they began with.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I often see the argument that Russia needs access to the Black Sea. It was used with Crimea too. Russia allways had access to the Black Sea through ports like Novorossiysk, Sochi, Tuapse, Taganrog and Sevastopol. Novorossiysk is even the largest port in Russia.

As you can see it's not a valid argument once you simply look at a map. Did you ever bother to do that ?

This is the map everyone should be looking at. I've posted my opinion on why Russia invaded in this thread several days ago.

If Russia can take the whole of southern Ukraine then they will own all the Ukrainian Black Sea oil and gas deposits and then they can create a stranglehold on Europe. Ukraine was charging high tariffs to Russia on the use of the Ukrainian pipelines and that is why Russia was building the other pipeline and now since the discovery of the Black Sea deposits Ukraine could literally knock Russia out of business and the Russian government gets 50% of it's operating income from the sale of oil and gas to Europe.

Oil companies are now considering restarting the Israeli pipeline to Europe to mitigate Russia's control of the market.

This is going to go on for a decade if not longer and probably with even more disastrous outcomes.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2018/10/10/black-sea-gas-deposits-an-overlooked-reason-for-russias-occupation-of-crimea/

 

Israel proposed pipeline. It's also relative to post that Russia is going to build a pipeline to China.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Buzz_Light_Year

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

It's impossible for the USA to sit out the WWIII, so the clearer the message of unity and determination, the better. Biden's message was exactly that. He understands that any concessions to Putin only embolden him.  

I respect your situation there, Helen.  I understand that for you and a few others here, this is not a theoretical discussion but a daily reality and a struggle not to return to the same nightmare you once lived through.  I wouldn't wish that hell on anyone but I also understand that with Putin we have a very dangerous, blatantly criminal leader whose choices, at least for awhile still, could lead the world over the edge into a time of darkness for us all.  IF this becomes WWIII then the U.S. certainly won't be able to sit it out but I still think we have to be VERY conscious of every step we take. 

I don't hate Biden nor do I hope for his failure in this situation but when a U.S. president allows himself to be caught up in emotional speeches in front of the world, what he says MATTERS.  In the last two days the man seemed to clearly lay out a doctrine that a chemical attack in Ukraine would would "trigger a response in kind".  A lot of people around the world immediately took that at face value and assumed he meant America would retaliate in the conflict using chemical weapons.  Yes, that DOES sound unbelievable but miscalculations are made of such statements.  Then yesterday he essentially called for "regime change".  To his credit, I think it was down to less than artful language, but again, it left a very dangerous impression at a time when that is that last thing the world needs.

I read a quote attributed to Sun Tzu, and I paraphrase - "IF your enemy is retreating, build him a golden bridge"  I think we'd all be better off if Biden used that kind of approach at this point.  Yes, still arm, train, and supply Ukraine's military, but leave Putin a way out of a situation that has been a catastrophe for him.  

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

33 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

This is the map everyone should be looking at. I've posted my opinion on why Russia invaded in this thread several days ago.

If Russia can take the whole of southern Ukraine then they will own all the Ukrainian Black Sea oil and gas deposits and then they can create a stranglehold on Europe. Ukraine was charging high tariffs to Russia on the use of the Ukrainian pipelines and that is why Russia was building the other pipeline and now since the discovery of the Black Sea deposits Ukraine could literally knock Russia out of business and the Russian government gets 50% of it's operating income from the sale of oil and gas to Europe.

Oil companies are now considering restarting the Israeli pipeline to Europe to mitigate Russia's control of the market.

This is going to go on for a decade if not longer and probably with even more disastrous outcomes.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2018/10/10/black-sea-gas-deposits-an-overlooked-reason-for-russias-occupation-of-crimea/

 

Israel proposed pipeline. It's also relative to post that Russia is going to build a pipeline to China.

 

 

My point was that the often repeated claim that Russia should have access to the Black Sea is pure BS for anyone who can read a map. On the other hand I'm sure you are right that the gas deposits are a factor in all of this. At present those deposits are not developed, but there is certainly a lot of money and power at stake in the longer term.

[Helen of Annoy]

37 minutes ago, and then said:

I respect your situation there, Helen.  I understand that for you and a few others here, this is not a theoretical discussion but a daily reality and a struggle not to return to the same nightmare you once lived through.  I wouldn't wish that hell on anyone but I also understand that with Putin we have a very dangerous, blatantly criminal leader whose choices, at least for awhile still, could lead the world over the edge into a time of darkness for us all.  IF this becomes WWIII then the U.S. certainly won't be able to sit it out but I still think we have to be VERY conscious of every step we take. 

I don't hate Biden nor do I hope for his failure in this situation but when a U.S. president allows himself to be caught up in emotional speeches in front of the world, what he says MATTERS.  In the last two days the man seemed to clearly lay out a doctrine that a chemical attack in Ukraine would would "trigger a response in kind".  A lot of people around the world immediately took that at face value and assumed he meant America would retaliate in the conflict using chemical weapons.  Yes, that DOES sound unbelievable but miscalculations are made of such statements.  Then yesterday he essentially called for "regime change".  To his credit, I think it was down to less than artful language, but again, it left a very dangerous impression at a time when that is that last thing the world needs.

I read a quote attributed to Sun Tzu, and I paraphrase - "IF your enemy is retreating, build him a golden bridge"  I think we'd all be better off if Biden used that kind of approach at this point.  Yes, still arm, train, and supply Ukraine's military, but leave Putin a way out of a situation that has been a catastrophe for him.  

It's emotional to show fear too.

I'll rather stand with those who show the appropriate emotions: determination, compassion, bravery, than with those whose fear leads them into knowingly or not spread Putin's propaganda wishes. (He wants to project an image of being untouchable. Hence his looooong tables. lol.)

Believe Kasparov when he says that the milder approach to Russia the West assumes, the worse will Putin's response be.

It might sound counter-intuitive to the sane people, but if you want to de-escalate this situation, you'll have to escalate it first. 

Which is why I say Slava Bidenu (Glory to Biden). He's the true ally to the true Europe. 

 

It's not exactly in accordance to European traditions (and this is your ancestral tradition too) to build any bridges for the enemies. They usually find an agricultural purpose, in form of fertilizer. (A bit of morbid humour, I hope you don't mind.)

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I hear ya,but again...outside of a nuke tossing contest,how is Russia's military capable of marching through Europe and making countries fall at there feet?

That's the fear I keep seeing on here,and yet a non NATO country equipped with mostly defensive weapons is kicking the Russians ass in one post,and the next all of Europe is under threat of being conquered by these same bunch of screwups if..."so and so isn't done!"

You kinda see what I'm saying?

Russia can't take a NATO country and hold it,not even a tiny one without the help of another major power backing them...not with the s**" show we are being told their military is.

Again nukes are out of the equation,but if one drops anywhere in this kind of situation the whole world goes on high alert!

How does Russia even "win" a tiny NATO Baltic state with threats?...they don't.

Again this military is supposedly taking incredible loses against a non NATO country...how are they possibly going to take over Europe?

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass,I actually respect your opinions man...but you didn't answer my question.

@Helen of Annoy I understand you and your countries problems from the past,hell even in your lifetime,but outside of the nuke option you've even seemed to agree and have some laughs at Russia's antique army...yet on another hand you think their junk army is going to take over all of Europe,how so?

They can't, but who knows? The possibility of more stupidity is an ever-present danger, where they are concerned. Hungary, '56, Czechoslovakia '68, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, 2008, their military has been mostly unchallenged until Ukraine. They're finding out that cold war policies of intimidation and military strategies which are holdovers from WW2 don't work anymore. What they think of as overwhelming force underwhelms and has been thwarted, mostly by infantry armed with sophisticated weaponry wielded in the unconventional tactics of mistake, improvisation and individual initiative they've learned from the West, the last eight years. It contrasts with the Russian top down, stick to the plan without deviation philosophy of war, even when it's not working. Figuratively speaking, while the Russians are trying to swat flies with sledgehammers, the Ukrainians adroitly slit their throats with razors.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Hammerclaw

[Electric Scooter]

5 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I often see the argument that Russia needs access to the Black Sea. It was used with Crimea too. Russia allways had access to the Black Sea through ports like Novorossiysk, Sochi, Tuapse, Taganrog and Sevastopol. Novorossiysk is even the largest port in Russia.

As you can see it's not a valid argument once you simply look at a map. Did you ever bother to do that ?

Its not trade ports, Crimea has the only Russian naval base in that region.

I have just been out food shopping and thats the first time in the UK (it didnt happen under Brexit or Coronavirus) that I have seen a supermarket with only a handful of each item on its shelves. UK wont end up in famine even if we have to pay more, but the grain, the fertilizer, the vegetable oils, so much of it comes form Ukraine and Russia that I think some peoples who have less disposable income are gonna starve.

The latest on Putin is he has out moved the sanctions by having those sanctioning Russia pay for things in Rubles. Crafty.

[Helen of Annoy]

42 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Its not trade ports, Crimea has the only Russian naval base in that region.

Not for much longer. 

 

42 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I have just been out food shopping and thats the first time in the UK (it didnt happen under Brexit or Coronavirus) that I have seen a supermarket with only a handful of each item on its shelves. UK wont end up in famine even if we have to pay more, but the grain, the fertilizer, the vegetable oils, so much of it comes form Ukraine and Russia that I think some peoples who have less disposable income are gonna starve.

Nah, that's still Brexit. EU's full stocked. There was some localized panic buying of sunflower oil but it seems that's over. Prices will keep going up and serious shortages are likely, but that depends on how long will Putler keep on destroying Russians in his attempts to destroy Ukraine. 

 

42 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The latest on Putin is he has out moved the sanctions by having those sanctioning Russia pay for things in Rubles. Crafty.

Crafty? 
Ruble is rubble, it's his attempt to keep it afloat. And since no one important in the West will accept one-sided changes of the contracts, the contracts are considered broken. 

The West was willing to keep minimum trade going on, but the "genius" Putin is successfully destroying that too.  

[Occult1]

6 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I often see the argument that Russia needs access to the Black Sea. It was used with Crimea too. Russia allways had access to the Black Sea through ports like Novorossiysk, Sochi, Tuapse, Taganrog and Sevastopol. Novorossiysk is even the largest port in Russia.

As you can see it's not a valid argument once you simply look at a map. Did you ever bother to do that ?

For Russia, the complete control of the Ukraine’s Black Sea and the Sea of Azov coasts is very important. It would give them an unprecedented political-economic advantage in the Black Sea region. There also the fact that if Ukraine is landlocked and effectively cut off from overseas trade, they will not longer be a serious threat in the future. Also, Russia needs to secure a land corridor between Crimea and the Donbass.

 

What makes the Black Sea so strategically important?

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/02/25/what-makes-the-black-sea-so-strategically-important/

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Occult1

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

Its not trade ports, Crimea has the only Russian naval base in that region.

I thought that this was a picture of the Novorossiysk naval base, but since you imply that it doesn't exist, it must be somewhere else..........

Btw Russia already had access to the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea before they invaded it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

This part of the treaty is especially interesting isnt it ?  "respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, honor its legislation and preclude interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine"

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

I have just been out food shopping and thats the first time in the UK (it didnt happen under Brexit or Coronavirus) that I have seen a supermarket with only a handful of each item on its shelves. UK wont end up in famine even if we have to pay more, but the grain, the fertilizer, the vegetable oils, so much of it comes form Ukraine and Russia that I think some peoples who have less disposable income are gonna starve.

Whose fault is it that there is no food comming from Ukraine and Russia ? Could it be because there is a war going on and not because Russia lacks a harbour in the Black Sea (Which they don't) ? 

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

The latest on Putin is he has out moved the sanctions by having those sanctioning Russia pay for things in Rubles. Crafty.

Or he could stop the war and get paid in money that is actually worth something. 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

32 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

For Russia, the complete control of the Ukraine’s Black Sea and the Sea of Azov coasts is very important.

So that makes it allright to invade a soverign country and kill innocent civilians ?

32 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

It would give them an unprecedented political-economic advantage in the Black Sea region.

See above.

32 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

If Ukraine is landlocked and effectively cut off from overseas trade, they will not longer be a threat in the future.

How did Ukraine ever pose a threat to Russia ?

32 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Also, Russia needs to secure a land corridor between Crimea and the Donbass.

Why ? Crimea and the Donbass doesn't belong to Russia in the first place.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

Its not trade ports, Crimea has the only Russian naval base in that region.

I have just been out food shopping and thats the first time in the UK (it didnt happen under Brexit or Coronavirus) that I have seen a supermarket with only a handful of each item on its shelves. UK wont end up in famine even if we have to pay more, but the grain, the fertilizer, the vegetable oils, so much of it comes form Ukraine and Russia that I think some peoples who have less disposable income are gonna starve.

The latest on Putin is he has out moved the sanctions by having those sanctioning Russia pay for things in Rubles. Crafty.

Its not happening here so its uniquely British circumstances at play - which sort of point to another Brexit bonus.

 

Br Cornelius

[DarkHunter]

7 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I'm sorry,but I'm getting 2 mixed messages from apparently 2 different Russia's on this site alone...

Are they the worldwide laughing stock that are losing a battle against a much smaller military?...or are they a would/could be "galactic death star" of a country capable of destroying everything in their wake?

How can they be both and the same?...really doesn't make sense if ya think about it.

Eta...drop the nuke reasoning, because everyone loses then...

Honest question,how is this Russian military supposedly losing in almost hysterical numbers going to take over all of Europe?...

@DarkHunter your very respected on here,maybe you can answer.

The issue is on paper the Russian military is strong but in reality it has serious and massive flaws.  The total military might of Russia is approximately 1,350,000 people but out of that only about 250,000 to 300,000 are contract soldiers with actual training while the rest are conscripts with barely any training or essentially glorified riot troopers with military equipment (the Russian national guard).

Then there is the corruption issue and poor financial planning.  Essentially Russia spent a ton of money developing money on weapon systems that have had zero impact on the war effort so far.  Billions have been spent developing the Su-57 (only a handful exist), developing the armata platform (still not in full production with approximately 100 tanks, ifvs, ect being made), hypersonic weapons (one was used so far), ect.  Developing these weapon systems have taken up a lot of Russia's defense spending and they havent produced anything truly useful yet.  Out of the money that was meant to improve the core of the army it seems most of it has been stolen by generals and politicians.  Russia got new AK-12 rifles but no optics or IR lasers on them, food rations that expires in 2014, cheap tires for military vehicles made in China that are literally falling apart as the vehicle are driven, and body armor that is just the plate carrier with the protective plate missing.

Russia changing its nuclear doctrine to has also been concerning.  Before Russian nuclear doctrine was clear they would only use a nuclear weapon if one was used against them first, now Russia says they will use nuclear weapons against an exentensial threat.  Most take that as meaning that if Russia believes it is facing a complete military defeat which would result in a change of government they would use nuclear weapons.

Basically the whole Russia taking over Europe and losing massive amounts of troops is coming from over estimations of Russia's ability colliding with the reality of the Russian military with a nuclear threat added in.