War in Ukraine

[rm2551]

14 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

It is surprising how willing ordinary Ukrainians are to be cannon fodder for a US proxy war.  I get being anti-Russian but how can they possibly want to sacrifice for US geopolitical interests?

I would counter the reasons "ordinary Ukrainians" are willing to be cannon fodder is as simple as they were invaded and do not want Russian forces on their land, or be a part of a Russian empire. Russians have shown themselves to be complete cunts. No military professionalism or common decency or humanity. As is understandable given the military is a reflection of the broader Russian culture.

Ukraine was very divided/fragmented - typical of an ex-post-soviet corrupt government trying to sort itself out and move away from eastern systems. Geo-political manoeuvrings on the back of Ukraines resistance is of course going to change/broaden the game, but I think those considerations are not in mind in terms of "ordinary Ukrainians".

14 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Like Japan, Australia's citizens are surrounded by water and completely disarmed. Most of the terrain is uninhabitable. Frankly, for the Chinese an invasion would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Some say the ANZUS treaty, signed in the 1940s between Australia, New Zealand and the US, would save the day. I say that treaty was written long before China became a nuclear power and, as a by the way, Biden among many other American politicians is already bought off, paid for and owned by the Chinese.

Yes! The ANZUS arrangements made long ago was useful, but those times and circumstances are long changed. Finally we are moving to address that with the quad (Aus/India/Japan/US alliance) which is overdue and is at least an attempt to build a counter to AP power being dominated by China alone.

I'd back England to be our most strident ally should anything like that ever kick off. The Us I'd trust and back, but I'd bet it far more likely the US would be already caught up in other problems that may blunt their response.

[Xolo1974]

5 hours ago, rm2551 said:

I'd back England to be our most strident ally should anything like that ever kick off

I’d like to think so. 

[JohnOsbourne]

8 hours ago, rm2551 said:

I would counter the reasons "ordinary Ukrainians" are willing to be cannon fodder is as simple as they were invaded and do not want Russian forces on their land, or be a part of a Russian empire. Russians have shown themselves to be complete cunts. No military professionalism or common decency or humanity. As is understandable given the military is a reflection of the broader Russian culture.

Ukraine was very divided/fragmented - typical of an ex-post-soviet corrupt government trying to sort itself out and move away from eastern systems. Geo-political manoeuvrings on the back of Ukraines resistance is of course going to change/broaden the game, but I think those considerations are not in mind in terms of "ordinary Ukrainians".

Yes! The ANZUS arrangements made long ago was useful, but those times and circumstances are long changed. Finally we are moving to address that with the quad (Aus/India/Japan/US alliance) which is overdue and is at least an attempt to build a counter to AP power being dominated by China alone.

I'd back England to be our most strident ally should anything like that ever kick off. The Us I'd trust and back, but I'd bet it far more likely the US would be already caught up in other problems that may blunt their response.

Except, Russia has never said it wants the Ukraine as part of some "empire", only that it not join an anti-Russian military alliance (NATO).  Whether or not you think this is a reasonable position or paranoia or whatever, I have yet to see a coherent explanation as to why the US needs a military alliance with the Ukraine.  I can't see the Russians acting much differently here from how the US would respond if China tried to form a military alliance with Mexico (or how they did respond during the Cuban Missile Crisis).  Or, how Australia would act if the Solomon Islands tried to get cozy with China...

BTW, the Russian speakers in the Donbas don't want to be ruled by Kiev, do their opinions count for anything here?  And re. Russian conduct, it's pretty clear they've been very restrained.  They've only recently began strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, something the US does on day one of the many unnecessary wars of choice they've launched in the last 20 years.  Where was the outrage then?

[rm2551]

19 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Except, Russia has never said it wants the Ukraine as part of some "empire", only that it not join an anti-Russian military alliance (NATO).

He didn't really have to say it (although he spells it out quite clearly in a few of his essays).

Putin's initial aim was to cut Ukraine's political head off (they went straight for Kiev, and invaded in a large scale that was designed to gain control over the entire country) and quickly gain control of the entire country. Clearly a design to turn Ukraine into a satellite state aka Belarus, or absorbing Ukraine back into "mother Russia" (the FAR more likely scenario given Crimea and Putin's own rhetorical manifesto's regarding his historical views of Ukraine IMHO). It is fantasy to think his plan was something lesser.

I get your point that this war was also related to NATO expansion - Ukraine in NATO is obviously untenable for Russia given Putin's world view. Indeed, if things went swimmingly, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were next in line without doubt for even more reasons (Baltic Sea security, Kaliningrad land bridge) and I severely doubt Putin would worry about NATO/Article 5 as he would almost cetrtainly threaten nuclear war and would think his armies were as strong as he believed (is constantly told by all subordinates) pre-Ukraine invasion. "The world's second army". LOL!!!! At least that rubbish is well and truly put to bed.

At the end of the day, Ukraine was looking westward. They had authoritarian rule, and they chose a future down the more European/western path over it. Who wouldn't???

20 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Or, how Australia would act if the Solomon Islands tried to get cozy with China...

They are! And we are basically going cap in hand begging them to reconsider which is a bit shit given we should have been focussed on Pacific nations for DECADES, not when China makes moves. We have a lot to learn about soft power and playing chess 3 or 4 moves ahead in geo-political terms. But we are quite young...

[rm2551]

On 12/11/2022 at 8:22 PM, Xolo1974 said:

I’d like to think so. 

100% mate. I have absolutely no doubt. Same if you needed us - again. I don't think there would be many against backing our Pommy mates. Not at all.

[JohnOsbourne]

[cryingbluerain]

15 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

If this crap was happening under Trump the MSM would be going apeshit with talk of WW3 right around the corner, but as long as it's a dem everything is cool.

[Walter]

[redrum]

On 1/2/2023 at 1:34 PM, Walter said:

Encroachment....... 5 yard penalty. 

[Walter]

6 hours ago, redrum said:

Encroachment....... 5 yard penalty. 

[apantherfrommd]

On 12/10/2022 at 8:46 AM, JohnOsbourne said:

It is surprising how willing ordinary Ukrainians are to be cannon fodder for a US proxy war.  I get being anti-Russian but how can they possibly want to sacrifice for US geopolitical interests?  But then again Zelensky is essentially a dictator at this stage so it's not like there's any feasible means of opposition in the Ukraine.  Of course it's also surprising how eager Poles and the Baltics are for this war go global (they'll be destroyed just like in WW2, Poland in particular should understand the worthlessness of Anglo-American security guarantees), it's a good indication of how effective propaganda can be.  

Ukraine doesn't see this as a proxy war. They are grateful for the assistance, and are conscious that they have less ammo, so they're making it all count.

They aren't receiving any offensive weapons to help them win, so they use what's given to them, as well as strategic knowledge of where the opposing forces are (due to assistance from the west).

I've never understood why jets and long range HIMARS have been rejected by NATO, as both can be used for defense or offense.

It's the same with a gun.

[SteveAJones]

4 hours ago, apantherfrommd said:

I've never understood why jets and long range HIMARS have been rejected by NATO, as both can be used for defense or offense.

Actually, NATO already has the Saab JAS 39 Gripen single engine fighter jet and they also have HIMARS, Germany in particular.

Three Baltic states have placed orders with the US for their own HIMARS, with the first expected to be delivered in three years.

 

 

 

[JohnOsbourne]

17 hours ago, apantherfrommd said:

Ukraine doesn't see this as a proxy war. They are grateful for the assistance, and are conscious that they have less ammo, so they're making it all count.

They aren't receiving any offensive weapons to help them win, so they use what's given to them, as well as strategic knowledge of where the opposing forces are (due to assistance from the west).

I've never understood why jets and long range HIMARS have been rejected by NATO, as both can be used for defense or offense.

It's the same with a gun.

It's irrelevant how they see it, it IS a proxy war, and they ARE being used as cannon fodder for US/UK interests.  This would be over tomorrow if the US halted aid.  The Ukraine would have to commit to a neutral foreign policy and they would go back to their lives. 

There is absolutely no American interest that depends on having a military alliance with the Ukraine.

[hummingbird69]

2 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

It's irrelevant how they see it, it IS a proxy war, and they ARE being used as cannon fodder for US/UK interests.  This would be over tomorrow if the US halted aid.  The Ukraine would have to commit to a neutral foreign policy and they would go back to their lives. 

There is absolutely no American interest that depends on having a military alliance with the Ukraine.

Bravo!!!

[redrum]

Stupid, fucking Russians never learn. 

[rm2551]

10 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

It's irrelevant how they see it

Really? It is irrelevant how Ukraine views this war when they were the ones invaded??? I don't quite understand how it is irrelevant for them - or what exactly you mean by that. They are fighting for their survival as a country that want to determine their own direction/policy/society - NOT be sucked back into the misery they once existed as. Isn't that like saying it is irrelevant how the US saw the attack on Pearl Harbour, it was simply about a proxy war between an emerging Pacific power and the US which seemed to have no interest in fighting against fascism?

I am not looking for a fight, I just cannot understand this view - or how this could possibly be irrelevant to Ukraine.

Do you think to avoid being a player in a "proxy war" they should have just rolled over to Russian aggression? I can't see another choice.

By the way, of course it is a proxy war, most are for larger players in the game. But wars are also local.

Edited January 10, 2023 by rm2551

[rm2551]

3 hours ago, redrum said:

Stupid, fucking Russians never learn. 

A product of the system the Russian forces represent. Broken and wholly corrupt.

[JohnOsbourne]

14 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Really? It is irrelevant how Ukraine views this war when they were the ones invaded??? I don't quite understand how it is irrelevant for them - or what exactly you mean by that. They are fighting for their survival as a country that want to determine their own direction/policy/society - NOT be sucked back into the misery they once existed as. Isn't that like saying it is irrelevant how the US saw the attack on Pearl Harbour, it was simply about a proxy war between an emerging Pacific power and the US which seemed to have no interest in fighting against fascism?

I am not looking for a fight, I just cannot understand this view - or how this could possibly be irrelevant to Ukraine.

Do you think to avoid being a player in a "proxy war" they should have just rolled over to Russian aggression? I can't see another choice.

By the way, of course it is a proxy war, most are for larger players in the game. But wars are also local.

Who cares if they were invaded or not?  How is it any of our concern?  America has enough problems without having to police some ex-Soviet border dispute.

The US didn't expect - or more importantly need - the rest of the world to make sacrifices for it against Japan.  Are you old enough to have learned that he who pays the piper, calls the tune?

Did you care when Iraq or Syria or Libya were invaded/destabilized by the US or their EU satellites?  How about when Australia bullied the Solomon Islands over their relations with China?  Why have you people lost your shit over Russia?

[JohnOsbourne]

Still way over-priced:

 

[Reggie29]

4 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Who cares if they were invaded or not?  How is it any of our concern?  America has enough problems without having to police some ex-Soviet border dispute.

The US didn't expect - or more importantly need - the rest of the world to make sacrifices for it against Japan.  Are you old enough to have learned that he who pays the piper, calls the tune?

Did you care when Iraq or Syria or Libya were invaded/destabilized by the US or their EU satellites?  How about when Australia bullied the Solomon Islands over their relations with China?  Why have you people lost your shit over Russia?

When did that happen? Our government questioned their motives but bullying? More bullshit reporting.

Also, Australia and the UK were fighting Japan and Germany for that matter long before Pearl Harbour. According to American teaching (and history), the US fought the war by themselves. At least that's the perception.

They did stop the war against Japan however, by dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now that's bullying.

[rm2551]

6 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Who cares if they were invaded or not?  How is it any of our concern?  America has enough problems without having to police some ex-Soviet border dispute.

I get it, the US did not need this "proxy war". I don't agree for various reasons, but now I better understand what you meant.

 

6 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

The US didn't expect - or more importantly need - the rest of the world to make sacrifices for it against Japan.  Are you old enough to have learned that he who pays the piper, calls the tune?

That is not what I meant, sorry I was not very clear. I struggled with that example and should have dropped it. LOL...

 

7 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Did you care when Iraq or Syria or Libya were invaded/destabilized by the US or their EU satellites?  How about when Australia bullied the Solomon Islands over their relations with China?  Why have you people lost your shit over Russia?

Don't agree with almost all of this. Syria, Libya destabilised themselves via their so called leaders choices on how to rule over their countries. Not saying the west did not play their part, but mate, seriously, geo-politics is not limited like it or not. In fact I reckon it should go further (we should stop trading with and dealing with outright cunts FULL STOP - but that's a pipe dream) Authoritarian regimes like theirs always end the same way sooner or later with very few examples - and I'd say countries like the US are well positioned to turn the screws on these psycho cunts to help bring them to an end *special shout out to the Kims for one... At least I hope so. Fucked if I want to see a world where that kind of "Government" becomes the norm and democracies are largely abandoned.

Australia bullying the Solomons???? LOL.... We couldn't even bully Fiji when there was a military coup. We just huffed and puffed with a lot of bullshit empty threats like a midget shaking their fist at a UFC fighter threatening violence. A better and much more accurate example you should have called on was what we did to the emerging nation of East Timor. We acted like utter cunts in regards to the gas fields and negotiations (illegally wire tapping them during negotiations and the like) and there was practically no accountability. It was, and remains, absolutely shameful and criminal.

I get your view more, cheers. I still cannot get past how it is irrelevant how Ukraine views this war. I get what you meant, but fucking hell, that's a weird way to say it (no offence). They got (and continue to get) fucked in the arse through no fault of their own. Not even the most generous analysis could have Ukraine as ANY kind of threat to Russia. Fuck Russia. If they are so scared of being invaded, or the world ganging up on them and even invading (such a bullshit view) then they should build their own wall. I don't think a single citizen or Government of any other country gives two fucks about Russia in terms of going to war with it let alone actually invading it. Their fear of NATO is nothing more than the paranoia of a dictator who only gets "yes, you are completely correct sir!" replies to any/all questions or views Putin poses to his circle. Who is going to give that fucker bad news??? And who gives a fuck as long as they are contained in that they are not (I should say do not continue to be) a threat to other nations.

Go Ukraine. I hope you push them off every centimetre of your land. And I am glad the west helps.

[redrum]

I think they took lessons from the Hungarians. 

 

 

[SteveAJones]

2 minutes ago, redrum said:

I think they took lessons from the Hungarians. 

Idiotic tactics on the part of the Russians. You don't attempt to breach the wall until after you disperse the mob, which can be accomplished in so many ways.

[redrum]

The Russian occupation of Hungary. If you only read one chapter, read 'THE AVO MAN.' 

[redrum]

7 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Still way over-priced:

 

😄