Why doesn't Ukraine claim St Petersburg, since that seems to be the game at present?
You ever played Risk...
Hmm. We have All heard of 'Annexation'... and know where it can go. It is a VERY different World now.
I WANT to see Ukraine TAKE BACK territories 'Annexed' by Russia.
Putin is becoming very much like Hitler.
I worry!
Hitler was'fairly sensible' (LOL!) until reverses in WW2 and addiction drove him 'well over'. Putin has already gone well past this.
I CAN see Putin using Tac Nukes.
What do WE do?
I DO NOT want MY people Fried! Maybe Putin, also. BUT... if HE starts.. GO FOR IT!
LIMITED... but...!!!
JEEZ!
Bar argument, maybe NOT your own, but... Old Days... mostly posturing, but, goes on and Kicks off... and, if not restrained by someone.. somebody... smashes bottle/glass. Restraint still possible... but VERY much more risky for all around. NOW... you, as restrainer, would be VERY watchful, leaving Pub... Illegal guns around... and You have not got one. Cops might have, but Too Late.
Heedless you must have drank in the Bigg Market going by your analogy. ;)
QuoteYou ever played Risk...
Claim Aus / NZ and stack your armies in PNG.
Howayman.
Nah! Just Village! Toonies in transit vans were not welcome! They were just after local 'posh' lasses! Farmers lads sorted it! I was a bit too young to get involved! Later... some scuffles! Nearly had neck broke... attempting to 'break up' someone elsle's fight...Blue on Blue! lol! 80s were WILD! Never been a fighter, but, Sort of miss the 'Old Days'! Now...; TOTALLY BORING!
Toonies now live here... village has Gone. :( And far too old to be bothered!
Now, you get cautious about 'Strange' blokes... and check armpiits. A lot more armed than you would think. I have been approached by what I think were dope dealers... or pimps...quietly look at coats... and just say NO THANK YOU! I Could be unjust! But am not gay!
Not a Village anymore! :(
Time to burn the White House again and take back British America.
Quote from: Gwydion on 01 October 2022, 10:59:56 AMTime to burn the White House again and take back British America.
Gwidion:
No... time is past... WE don't really want any more S**t than we have already got! ;D
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 01 October 2022, 11:15:43 AMGwidion:
No... time is past... WE don't really want any more S**t than we have already got! ;D
I think the Americans might be thinking the same, well the sane ones
I heard a very interesting radio program on Friday afternoon - BBC R4 - about Rare Earths ... bear with me on this one folks, it does have a relevance to this thread.
What it did was look at where all the Rare Earth deposits were and what was going on around them, and (low and behold) one of the largest area for various rare earths just happens to be ... you guessed it ... in the east of Ukraine right under all the various territories that Putin has just Annexed.
The program estimated that the potential current market value of what the Russians are sitting on in Ukraine is about $178 trillion worth. So maybe Putin is not playing the game we all thought he was playing (although I suspect somebody on this forum could probably beat him at RISK!).
The program went on to say that, whilst this might all look like a coincidence, there is a pattern here. Crimea also has a lot of rare earths and also a large Russian backed mercenary group has been working in Africa for quite some time now (I think it is called the Vanguard Group) and guess what ... it is appearing in all the 'hot-spots' and troubles-zones where there are large deposits of, yes ... Rare Earths.
And of course Rare Earths are just the thing you need for decarbonisation technology. So is Russia actually enacting a strategy to grab the equivalent of the next oil regions ... hmmmm.
Not at all bad as a conspiracy theory goes I thought ... :D
It's not just the rare earth metals.
Byline Times did an interesting article on Russian climate change meetings. Every year their scientists report to Putin (why do I have to stop myself typing Soviet and Stalin???), their version of Davos. Last year's report showed that although climate change will bring some benefits that are exploitable - ie increased ice melt means more access to resources within arctic circle, and more northern lands in theory can be opened up to food growing, the same changes will reduce the crop yields in current growing areas. By an amount greater than the potential gains further north.
What does Ukraine have? Shedloads of arable land, with some of the least depleted soil cover on the planet (ie 95 harvests left instead of 55). What did Zelenksi do in 2021? Allow foreigners to buy farmland as it comes up for sale for the first time. Enter US corporations with their GMO sterile seeds and roundups. Thus it could be interpreted that Putin's war, like most before, is just the usual resource grabbing and not as much to do with "Nazi regimes and expansion of NATO". It's good cover rhetoric to foist on a press on both sides that can't do basic journalism for multiple reasons.
The article is here:
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/04/21/putins-war-on-net-zero-controlling-europes-breadbasket-to-prevent-russias-fossil-fuel-collapse/
Then there is the coal and iron deposits in eastern Ukraine too.
Mark
When the war first started the only logical reason I could find was some kind of resources grab, although I was thinking more traditional fare like fossil fuels/crops, I had no idea about the rare metals. They'd grab a chunk of land, extract as much as they could in a 3-6 month window and then claim a tactical retreat 'in the interests of peace'. But then as they stormed across Ukraine and straight for Kyiv it seemed like a more aggressive attempt at reclaiming Soviet borders, a last throw of the dice for an aging dictator to leave his mark.
As it stands I don't know what to think anymore. The war has achieved everything Russia didn't want, with a strengthened NATO, a crashed domestic economy, and the weaknesses of the Russian war machine exposed. Putin's ego and position means he can't afford to lose, but the standard of these mobilised troops and the overall moral of his army indicates that a win is unlikely. Even this desperate attempt at claiming the land after a 99% referendum result (why's it always 99%?!) isn't going to change things on the ground.
What's worrying is that I always thought Putin was a more considered style of dictator and manoeuvred himself carefully on the world stage. As this conflict drags on he's backing himself further and further into a corner and the only way out is for him to be removed, or to hit that shiny red button. I'd hoped that someone sensible in the ranks below might have taken that decision for him by now, but sadly not.
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2022, 10:05:01 PMWhat's worrying is that I always thought Putin was a more considered style of dictator and manoeuvred himself carefully on the world stage. As this conflict drags on he's backing himself further and further into a corner and the only way out is for him to be removed, or to hit that shiny red button. I'd hoped that someone sensible in the ranks below might have taken that decision for him by now, but sadly not.
I always thought he "unpleasant" but I now wish I had taken more seriously those people who said he was an insidious Hitlerian figure. Certainly not an individual to be admired for his leadership qualities
Hmmm, I've been disappointed by the way the Russians have put up with the whoreson. I'd got the impression from a number of Russian students that the place had grown up a bit, but it's become clear that the brave voices raised against him are not those of Ivan in the street.
I was rather dubious about the 'intent' of the thrust towards Kyiv.
Of course, if resistance had crumbled and Ivan could have driven straight into Capital... vodka all round! But, the way the column stalled and just sat there? Drawing troops, resources and attention away from East... the declared target area.
Just, maybe, Russians were not quite as stupid and hopeless as we assume... and intent was a massive, VERY costly, Feint? Putin not bothered about losses... and historically, Russians are not, either.
It has been pointed out in various places, that the column was very seriously under-manned, with some troop carrying vehicles only having the driving/fighting crew and much less than a full complement of infantry... if any!
Once purpose served... pulled back... disastrously... but East largely 'secured'. Ukrainian tenacity and Russian incompetence has meant that much territorial gains since lost... maybe more to come. But, large, important chunks now annexed by Russia... in name, anyway.... but allowing a shift in strategy... hence mobilisation and threats.
I have only warched short clips, but does anyone else think that Putin looked, just a little bit 'shaky' in 'celebrations'? Wishful Thinking, maybe!
I very vaguely remember... in the early years following The Wall coming down and break-up of USSR... some warned of a rising Russian 'leader' who was very 'nationalist' in intent. Was that Putin? I do not recall name.
Back then, I thought West far too quick to write off Russia as a potential future threat... but, of course, attention shifted to Middle east.
I think it's immensely difficult to have a rational conversation about this topic as there is so much propaganda and counter propaganda about.
We liked Putin back in the late 90s.
He was sober for a start, and Yeltsin had abandoned control of the country to corrupt oligarchs in league often with western mafia capitalism.
We had an ally, a strong ally who wanted to face against Islamist terror.
In 2000 he had suggested Russia join NATO.
He had his own problems with Islamist forces in Chechnya, and he was the first foreign leader to ring George W Bush post 9/11 and offer condolences and help. He facilitated the establishment of US bases in Central Asia for the invasion of Afghanistan.
The quid pro quo of course was no 'interference' in Russia's 'natural areas of interest' - the 'lost' provinces of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldovan transdniestria and the Transcaucasus region.
Someone in the US decided that not only was that unreasonable (despite the continuing existence of the Monroe Doctrine in the Americas) but actively interfered in destabilising pro Russian feelings in these regions.
NATO - pushed eastward against the understanding Russia thought it had (the US records of the 1990 meetings between Sec of State Baker and Gorbachev are available at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, Washington DC - online here - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between)
Despite this, the the US said in 2008 it wanted Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. This pushed Russia's 'surrounded' button. It may seem odd to our vision of the world but it's a Russian fear since Teutonic Knights and Polish/Lithuanian attacks in the West and Mongol/Tartar hegemony in the East.
The overthrow of the elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych (his 2010 election described by international observers to have been transparent, unbiased and an "impressive display" of democracy) by a mob consisting of students infiltrated by armed fascists (not Russian propaganda - you can see them in video and pictures in the Maidan) made Putin realise there was no deal to be done with a West that saw itself as the sole arbiter of what was acceptable in the world.
When Ukrainians wanted the President they had democratically elected (Yanukovych) to continue - Svoboda and Azov thugs killed 40+ people and injured hundreds more in an attack on protestors in Odessa . Then they replaced military units in the Donbas who would not fire on their Ukrainian compatriots who were against the Maidan coup and shot and shelled them into submission. Hardly surprising there was an uprising.
I don't condone or support Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
But if you want to understand how we got here it is worth checking out the last thirty years before blaming it all on 'Mad Vlad', a Russian land grab, or stealing rare earth metals (although the latter no doubt made a stronger case in planning meetings). This was not an out of the blue whim, and Putin had been trying to talk to us about it for fourteen years
We are snowed under with propaganda just as much as Russia is and it is no way to make a rational choice about pushing to join a war where we could end the world.
We should be looking for a negotiated settlement without provoking a NATO/Russian war we managed to avoid for forty three years in the Cold War.
Quote from: Gwydion on 02 October 2022, 12:02:52 PMWe should be looking for a negotiated settlement .........
What should this negotiated settlement achieve? Ukraine gives up part or all of its territory siezed illegally, by any reasonable judgment, by Putin's Russia since 2014? I don't think so. Putin has annexed territory, in two invasions, belonging to a neighbouring country that was never a threat to Russia. People seem to forget that Putin has form. He attacked Georgia in 2008 in similar circumstances, using similar rationale, and sent his assassins twice to this country. Putin has been talking, to anybody who cared to listen, about restoring a Soviet-style sphere of influence, since the fall of the Soviet Union. I doubt very much if this is the last territorial demand Putin has to make in Europe. I think he will carry on behaving the way he does until a stop is put to him.
Crimea was only part of Ukraine because of Khrushchev's misplaced largesse and Yeltsin's hasty drunken power grab with Shushkevich and Kravchuk breaking up the USSR in 1991. A negotiated dissolution would have dealt with that issue as Crimea was clearly Russian.
What would a negotiated solution look like?
I don't know, but a prolonged bit of jaw-jaw would be better than protracted war-war.
(Re Putin and Georgia - the USA's sudden jump in 2008 to offer a NATO Membership Action Plan to Georgia {and Ukraine} despite French and German objections provoked this. Georgia misread the USA's bluster expecting military intervention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is part of pattern of US provocation of Russia).
Ukraine is where my late father-in-law was born. The rest of his family disappeared in 1939 when the Soviets grabbed Eastern Poland and incorporated it into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, formerly the Ukrainian People's Republic, itself annexed by the Soviet Union in 1920. Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the 1950s but the history of Crimea goes back much further than that and it was never Russian until occupied in the 18th Century.
But, none of this matters very much because, in 2014, Crimea was part of the territory of Ukraine. It was recognised as such internationally. Putin's annexation was illegal, and seen as such by all except his sympathisers and apologists.
Countries that joined NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union did so because they were afraid of Russia, and with very good reason. Trying to blame the US or NATO for provoking Putin is straight out of Moscow's 'song-book' – provocation is what the Soviet Union and Russia have done for decades and only desisted in the past because of NATO, and because of the consequences of not doing so.
What we see now is history repeating itself. You cannot negotiate with criminals, or appease them, nor should we.
Perhaps if my home gets burgled I should negotiate with the burglar and let him keep the DVD player if he returns the TV and radio. I don't ******* think so.
Calling me a Putin apologist and supporter simply proves what I said about the difficulty of having a rational discussion about this problem, not to mention a polite one.
Crimea was Ottoman and Tartar pre 1783.
The tough guy approach clearly did not work. Perhaps talking in 1999, 2008 and 2014 may have prevented us being in this mess now. But we are where we are and we have to start from here.
So what do we do?
1 Fight a direct war with Russia?
2 Continue to try and destroy Russia by a proxy war?
3 Negotiate?
A direct war is so unpredictable we risk world annihilation. Such a course is the action of a psychotic gambler.
A proxy war? Not as mad a course as 1 but one fraught with risk and financial ruin for all except the USA. And where does Russia begin and end now? And what is the end game? If we win we have a failed state, bitter and vengeful with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. A good plan for a safe and secure future?
Negotiate. Yes Putin will get something he wanted – but what? And what does Ukraine get? And what does the West get? To be negotiated, that is the point, which is better than shooting bombing and shelling each other in my opinion.
Quote from: Gwydion on 03 October 2022, 02:05:05 PM1 Fight a direct war with Russia?
2 Continue to try and destroy Russia by a proxy war?
3 Negotiate?
A direct war is so unpredictable we risk world annihilation. Such a course is the action of a psychotic gambler.
A proxy war? Not as mad a course as 1 but one fraught with risk and financial ruin for all except the USA. And where does Russia begin and end now? And what is the end game? If we win we have a failed state, bitter and vengeful with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. A good plan for a safe and secure future?
Negotiate. Yes Putin will get something he wanted – but what? And what does Ukraine get? And what does the West get? To be negotiated, that is the point, which is better than shooting bombing and shelling each other in my opinion.
I agree about the difficulty in discussing this.
I don't think a direct war would risk annihilation. Putin does not have the personal ability to launch a Nuclear strike, Only the ability to order it. His senior generals then have to ratify that decision. I agree they might agree to use tactical nukes, but I doubt it. The West's response even on a conventional level would be devastating for Russia and the Generals will surely know this. Even in that form, its more than any sane person would want.
The proxy war is far less risky. Financially the Nato can afford it. We have supplied limited kit and funds to Ukraine, but it seems to have had a huge impact on the war and caused large losses of men and materiel to the Russians. If we supplied more of the Nato kit that is sitting around doing very little it would help the Ukranians significantly. Don't forget they are paying for quite a bit of kit themselves. we could also do it on a lend - lease basis. The Ukranians are not asking for charity , just for us to supply it
THe UK got into huge debt in WW2 and since the 1950's our standard of living has improved year on year. So it might be tough for a time but we wre unlikely to be made bankrupt.
Negotiation is obviously the best way out. However, you need to negotiate from a position of strength. You also need two parties that are willing to negotiate. Currently, neither Ukraine or Russia are willing to budge.
Ukraine wants the areas taken returned, as do, I believe the majority of the residents of those areas who regard themselves Ukrainian even if they speak Russian as a first language. The Russians say they are a part of Russia
I think the answer to this would be to get both sides to agree to abide by the results of free and Democratic elections in these areas.
However, until the Russians either replace Putin with a more reasonable leader, or get such a bloody nose that they realise holding these territories is untenable (like Afghanistan), they are unlikely to do this.
The Ukrainians while not wanting to relinquish these territories will only agree to negotiate when they are in a strong enough position to Guarantee that Russia will not try this again.
So that brings us back to the only answer for the immediate future - the proxy war. The West cannot afford to lose this lest Russia try to annex Europe. So the more support we give Ukraine the better.
Otherwise, we will be queuing for bread and driving the 21st century equivalent of a Trabant.
Quote from: Gwydion on 03 October 2022, 02:05:05 PMCalling me a Putin apologist and supporter.........................
I called you no such thing. Perhaps you could re-read what I wrote, which was that "Putin's annexation was illegal, and seen as such by all except his sympathisers and apologists." That is a matter of fact. Other than the usual suspects, the international community in the UN largely condemned it. Yes, I know Crimea was once Ottoman territory, I said as much, "it was never Russian until occupied in the 18th Century".
Be that as it may, nobody is trying to destroy Russia by a proxy war. That is, frankly, absurd – it has been tried before. Russia, on the other hand, certainly tried to destroy Ukraine by its illegal February invasion. That it failed was a combination of Russian military incompetence, Ukrainian resistance, and support to Ukraine from its international friends, which it has every right to expect to receive.
The 4th Option which you have overlooked is the one being pursued now, that Ukraine is provided with the means to resist, to the point that Putin, or somebody else in the Kremlin, realises that the game is not worth the candle.
The "mess" as you put it, is one entirely of Putin's making and the "end game" must be that he does not profit from his aggression and seized Ukrainian territory is restored to it.
Putin is an aggressive autocrat who is reviving the kind of expansive Russian nationalism that goes back to the Czars. History shows us what happens when you try to negotiate with despots. No latter-day Munich Agreement, thanks very much.
Quote from: Orcs on 03 October 2022, 04:17:31 PMI agree about the difficulty in discussing this.
I really don't understand why it should be difficult to discuss it. The issues are pretty much black and white in my view. I agree with you generally though. Putin has to be stopped now, and emphatically. If he isen't he will just feel able to pursue his adventures elsewhere. As for nuclear war, MAD is as valid now as it was during the Cold War.
"In Europe and America there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mister Krushchev said, "We will bury you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?
There is no monopoly on common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president?
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mister Reagan says, "We will protect you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
But what might save us, me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too" - Sting
QuoteI think the answer to this would be to get both sides to agree to abide by the results of free and Democratic elections in these areas.
Orcs, I think you mean a democratic election. We had a Democratic election here in 2020 and we are still paying for it.
And Mike, :-bd
Quote from: d_Guy on 04 October 2022, 03:25:56 AMOrcs, I think you mean a democratic election. We had a Democratic election here in 2020 and we are still paying for it.
And Mike, :-bd
Yes, That's true.
I think we in the UK get a very opaque view of the US Political scene. Mainly what our media want us to believe
Forget about 'Free and Democratic Elections'.
Ukrainians ousted democratically elected pro-Russian leader. Current Leadership intensely supported in most of Ukraine. Russia... ?
'Debatable Lands' have just had Referendum... and NOBODY. except Russia, gives result ANY credibility. A 99% vote is a sick joke! But... has been done. There is no 'democratic' solution... only military... to a point where everything 'settles' to some extent. Maybe by end of 2023?
Negotiation? Ukrainians WON'T. Putin cannot afford to, or He's gone.
'Pray... and pass the ammunition'.
QuoteI really don't understand why it should be difficult to discuss it. The issues are pretty much black and white in my view. I agree with you generally though. Putin has to be stopped now, and emphatically. If he isen't he will just feel able to pursue his adventures elsewhere. As for nuclear war, MAD is as valid now as it was during the Cold War.
Which is why it's difficult - because I don't think there is anything straightforward or black and white about it.
I see no evidence of Putin wanting to invade Europe as a whole. Indeed he would have been content if we had not funded and organised the Maidan overthrow of Yanukovych.
Now we have, and he has invaded, I support self determination for Ukraine, but not at any cost.
Re Crimea - you didn't say it had been Ottoman - as your own quote of yourself shows - you left its pre Russian status blank. I just wanted to make it clear it has never been Ukrainian.
Your fourth option is simply the proxy war rewritten for PR purposes.
The 'mess' is born of Western interference in the 2014 Maidan coup which was either a massive miscalculation or a successful plan to goad Russia into a mistake.
I thought for a long time it was the former - but seeing who is profiting from the war and thinking about the attitude of some parts of the US establishment I am beginning to slide towards the latter.
The claim that the 2014 Maidan Revolution was a US/EU sponsored coup is a myth perpetrated by Putin and the Russian media. It is typical Russian decomposition and disinformation of the kind that the GRU and FSB, are very good at. The 'Western-backed Nazi coup' nonsense was still being disseminated on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is part and parcel of Putin's rationale.
The idea the Crimea is historically Russian is risible and no more than Putin's fiction, a narrative that comments by the then incumbent of the White House and right-wing European populist politicians helped to reinforce.
Under Stalin's regime Crimea was ethnically cleansed of its non-Russian people and re-populated with ethnic Russians, an established Russian/Soviet policy of removing native populations from their lands, yet in the 1991 referendum on Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union more that half of Crimea's, predominantly Russian, population voted for independence from Moscow. Putin's referendum in 2014 was no more than a coercive exercise in legitimizing the illegal annexation and was dismissed as such by the Council of Europe and the UN.
Crimea has only ever been Russian by virtue of invasion and annexation. It became part of Russia in 1783 after another Russian autocrat with expansionist ambitions took it by force. Crimea has been part of Ukraine for approaching 70 years, so to say that it has never been part of Ukraine is just wrong.
It is a black and white issue as far as I'm concerned and really couldn't be clearer.
Seems to me both sides here have made their positions quite clear and that neither side is going to convince the other of the rightness of their cause, so could we bring this to a close and agree to disagree?
To steal a thought, "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove
Time to lock the thread, perhaps?
Watching it carefully
My hope is that after Putin is gone whoever takes over releases the FSB files on who in western societies was receiving money from his regime
I said it was difficult to discuss. :)
It is clearly not a clear cut issue.
A simple 'I'm right, you're wrong' approach does no service to anyone. I had hoped I was using some evidence and logic to put forward a different approach than the mainstream 'Putin's MAD!' argument, which really cuts no ice when you look at what he has done over the years.
US State Department papers and analysis by Western academics with no Russian axe to grind - John Mearsheimer in the US and Robert Wade at LSE for example - suggest a different interpretation of how we got here than a simple expansionist Russia and a mad new Tsar. By seeking a more nuanced explanation than current media propaganda, such investigations are seeking not to undermine support for Ukraine, but to enable a rational approach to what happens next.
I'm sorry some people feel the thread should be shut down, I thought we were having a discussion rather than inflaming people.
I concur with John over the logic of MAD prevailing over the years and I want to get the best possible result for Ukrainians and the rest of us. A result I see as unlikely to be achieved through John Wayne gritted teeth and a stern eyed Clint Eastwood 'Do you feel lucky punk?' approach.
I make no apology for seeking a deeper understanding than bad guy/good guy, but I apologise if I have upset anyone.
That was not my intention.
I think we're good guys, both sides views have been put across clearly so no problem from here. I guess the coming weeks will give us more of an indication as to how this conflict gets resolved, especially if Ukraine are able to continue making these advances and regain chunks of their land.
Quote from: Gwydion on 04 October 2022, 10:13:17 PMI'm sorry some people feel the thread should be shut down, I thought we were having a discussion rather than inflaming people.........I apologise if I have upset anyone.
So am I. So did I. This forum tends to stifle threads that shows any sign of robust discussion by the participants. I wonder why it has non-wargaming boards at all, of the kind that can only invite vigorous debate.
Anyway, no apology is necessary, not to me anyway and you certainly haven't upset me.
Mearsheimer's view was that Ukraine should remain a nuclear armed state to deter Putin. Perhaps he was right about that.
For me it is simple a matter of right and wrong and I'll leave it there.
Quote from: Big Insect on 04 October 2022, 09:12:27 PMI agree
Why? You don't have to read it. It is quite an interesting discussion I thought. Perhaps all Non-Wargaming discussion should be removed.
Thank you John, Best wishes.
I found the different perspectives informative, and the arguments clearly presented
Like some I was a little nervous about the possibility of the discussion descending into acrimony
I suspect this says more about the general level of discourse in public life than it does about the forum members involved
Thank you, Gentlemen
Quote from: John Cook on 04 October 2022, 11:05:04 PMWhy? You don't have to read it. It is quite an interesting discussion I thought. Perhaps all Non-Wargaming discussion should be removed.
Because these sorts of contentious threads (especially when they appear to get very heated) drive away those members, new members, potential members who are just not interested in polarised political debates.
It is impossible t really know what a thread is about until you start reading it.
For once Mark is right....
having Just Burnt through this tread, I don't see anything that contentious (you should see historians arguing, thats an eye opener).
My thoughts (take what you like)
-If Putin is such a nice reasonable bloke then why is Russian with all its natural resources such a poor impoverish nation?
-The Russian army as it curently stands is "broken" (counter arguments on the back of a postage stamp please). Their moral is very low and thats before a good cold winter with poor/no winter supplies.
-Their modern weapons have been shown to be far less effective than previously believed and seem to be best employed against civilian targets. And who would have though an autoloader was such a poor choice for a tank.
- The current troop densities will make it very hard to deploy a tactical Nuc in a military application (even at a river crossing point). And you couldn't use one in Kerson as that would contaminate the only water source for the Russian oblast of the Crimea.
I'm not sure how it will play out but I think there will be more "death by window" before its done.
It's in a non-wargaming thread titled 'Annexation' and I don't think the debate is overtly political.
Robust debate is welcomed in my view as long as it doesn't get personal (and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make it personal!).
I quite enjoy the cut and thrust of these debates.
My fear is Putin may willingly exchange all his conventional forces in theatre and the black sea (NATO's threatened response) for a nuclear devastated Ukraine.
If he can't have it no one will.... :(
Quote from: Matt J on 05 October 2022, 10:06:45 AMMy fear is Putin may willingly exchange all his conventional forces in theatre and the black sea (NATO's threatened response) for a nuclear devastated Ukraine.
If he can't have it no one will.... :(
I doubt he would be allowed to. There is historical preident here, Kruschev was removed by the politbuarux for thretening use of nucs in Cuba. Traditionally the upper echelons of Russia dislike gamblers.
Quote from: Big Insect on 05 October 2022, 07:52:32 AMBecause these sorts of contentious threads (especially when they appear to get very heated) drive away those members, new members, potential members who are just not interested in polarised political debates.
It is impossible t really know what a thread is about until you start reading it.
The only time I've ever seen the kind of extreme behaviour, I think you allude to, was on the TMP Napoleonic board where one individual was continually and gratuitously combatative, and generally bad mannered. He is now banned, I understand, as he has been recently from at least one other forum. It is certainly true that it did drive people away from TMP, people who were very knowledgeable and an asset, but that was the fault of the moderator who took a decade to 'pull the plug' on the person concerned.
This was, however, a unique case to my knowledge but banning is the simple and effective sanction for that kind of behaviour.
The very existence of a 'Non-wargaming Discussion' board invites the kind of contentious and polarised debate you describe and it seems unreasonable, to me, not to expect it. It is equally unreasonable, I think, to expect people to agree. The whole point of a debate is to allow differences to be aired and positions defended, is it not? But, if it is really an issue the simple answer is, surely, to remove the board.
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 05 October 2022, 10:26:37 AMI doubt he would be allowed to. There is historical preident here, Kruschev was removed by the politbuarux for thretening use of nucs in Cuba. Traditionally the upper echelons of Russia dislike gamblers.
I think the fall-out, in every sense of the term, from the use of enough nuclear weapons to devastate Ukraine, would be such that it would be counter-productive in the extreme. I think the effect of using a single nuclear weapon, even a tactical one, would be disastrous for Putin and Russia.
On the other hand, it is the case that doctrinally, first use of tactical nuclear weapons is now a stated Russian option. "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat."
According to RUSI 'for general warfighting as a last-ditch effort in cases where the military is losing a war and the state is under threat' and that 'They are thus unlikely to be used in Ukraine, except in the unlikely scenario that Russian forces are routed to the point that Ukraine can retake Crimea.'
How unlikely is that scenario now, I wonder?
Putin is neither mad nor stupid but he does seem to be a risk-taker and, unlike his Soviet predecessors, does not have an ideology to preserve. He also has neither, as far as I can see, a Central Committee nor a Supreme Soviet to contend with.
In summary, it is all a bit of a worry. :(
.
Because these sorts of contentious threads (especially when they appear to get very heated) drive away those members, new members, potential members who are just not interested in polarised political debates.
Agreed; the potential for acrimony is why I touch such subjects very lightly .. or not at all. I want help with painting, basing and so forth.
I doubt he would be allowed to. There is historical preident here, Kruschev was removed by the politbuarux for thretening use of nucs in Cuba. Traditionally the upper echelons of Russia dislike gamblers.
As I said at the club in February, the problem is there is no politburo to restrain him. As an autocrat he is surrounded by toadies who will not tell him when he is wrong, as shown in the farce of the pre-invasion televised interrogation of the advisers on his Council/Cabinet. As he cannot be wrong, at each stage he has double-downed on his 'investment'. At what point will someone be willing to stand up to him ... and who will that man be? It may be that he can only issue orders but who is going to gainsay him and refuse? He keeps backing himself further into the corner from which I see no route out for him other than WMD, which will have a very uncertain outcome.
I agree with John about Putin - his history suggests someone who has taken gambles and won. (He likes to project this as part of his self image - eg the contested story of his defence of the Dresden KGB Offices armed only with a handgun against a mob). Always bad for rational decision making.
Despite what some commentators (and some intelligence analysts) say; Russia is not the Soviet Union. Whether this is good or bad for making sensible decisions on use of WMD remains unclear at the moment.
By annexing the Donbas Putin is obviously trying to move the goalposts and say an attack here is an attack on Russia. How seriously we should take that is the open question.
Re Khrushchev: While some commentators believe the Cuban crisis may have weakened his power base, Soviet sources and most analysts do not mention it as a factor in his removal which had more to do with shifts in political power blocs within the Politburo and wider Communist Party. See "You Don't Know Khrushchev Well": The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics (https://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article/24/1/78/109004/You-Don-t-Know-Khrushchev-Well-The-Ouster-of-the) for probably more than you ever want to know about it.
The missile crisis ended in 1962 - with the removal of US missiles from Turkey (and possibly Italy), so perhaps Khrushchev got what he wanted. He wasn't removed until 1964 - hardly anything to do with 'using' nukes in Cuba.
Well since everyone else seems to be pitching in, here are my pearls of wisdom :-B :
1. I'm comfortable with robust discussions and can ignore points I disagree with. :D
2. No forum member is likely to know for certain what Putin intended, will intend or might intendor have much influence on future events.
3. I am surprised that there is not much more interest in the operational and tactical aspects of what is happening e.g. my post on the Kharkiv campaign being a copy of the Wehrmacht's Operation Fredericus.
So here is another thought:
Three times now we have seen the same Ukrainian operational approach after degrading the defense:
a. Create a near encirclement by cutting all but one main road supply line.
b. Use Noise {traditional and social media including panicky Russian bloggers) to magnify the achievement and scare the enemy
c. Await the Russians "retreating to more advantageous positions"
d. Line up special forces ambushes or artillery fire points along the only viable road retreat.
Are they following Mongol Conquest tactics?
or trying to avoid taking prisoners?
or avoiding the need to reduce desperate "pockets"?
I'm not sure how often we see this systematic destruction of an enemy on the tabletop as opposed to the line up on opposite sides and "have at it" approach.
It is really hard to know what is going on at an operational tactical level mainly due to Kyiv tightly controlling the media. Apparently really hard for western journalists to embed with Ukrainian forces particularly on the front line. The latest Battlefield:Ukraine podcast provides some good insight into this with Anthony Lloyd
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/8-shaping-perceptions/id1617276298?i=1000581093910
Agreed. But in case forum members dont know, this is a good place to start:
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
They also use pro-Russian sources and you can also follow the links to the maps in some of those if you are so inclined. Rybar in particular had useful maps of the "retreat to more advantageous positions" in the Kherson front although he is strongly pro-Kremlin.
I wonder how many forum contributors would be supporters of Putin; if only they had been born in Russia.
Quote from: DecemDave on 05 October 2022, 02:28:43 PM3. I am surprised that there is not much more interest in the operational and tactical aspects of what is happening e.g. my post on the Kharkiv campaign being a copy of the Wehrmacht's Operation Fredericus.
...
Are they following Mongol Conquest tactics?
or trying to avoid taking prisoners?
or avoiding the need to reduce desperate "pockets"?
...
Interest in the operational and tactical aspects is difficult given the limited reliable information available.
Also, there is some reluctance by some to 'game' such recent events
I suspect these two are significant factors:
- or trying to avoid taking prisoners?
- or avoiding the need to reduce desperate "pockets"?
Both would consume manpower the Ukrainians badly need elsewhere.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 05 October 2022, 04:29:08 PMI wonder how many forum contributors would be supporters of Putin; if only they had been born in Russia.
I suspect many of us, if born in Russia, would say we are supporters of Putin in any polls ;)
A possibly interesting side note on prisoners.
A friend of mine was an IT instructor at an Iranian officer cadet school at the beginning of the Iran Iraq war. The Iranians needed somewhere to house one of the early batches of prisoners they had captured, and they ended up in a wired off area at the cadet school. Within a couple of days, the senior staff realised that the cadets were seeing the Iraqis as fellow humans who were suffering. The prisoners were moved out overnight.
Quote from: paulr on 05 October 2022, 06:38:27 PMA possibly interesting side note on prisoners.
A friend of mine was an IT instructor at an Iranian officer cadet school at the beginning of the Iran Iraq war. The Iranians needed somewhere to house one of the early batches of prisoners they had captured, and they ended up in a wired off area at the cadet school. Within a couple of days, the senior staff realised that the cadets were seeing the Iraqis as fellow humans who were suffering. The prisoners were moved out overnight.
So there is hope for humanity
Not while the people who moved them are in charge.
Here's some more background info. from History Hit.
Not bad as a broad brush intro.
I suspect you could pick holes from both a Russian and Ukrainian perspective which probably means not a bad synthesis if both sides object!
The Holodomor - stated in the video to be purely anti-Ukrainian is interpreted by many (non-Russian) academics as part of a USSR wide anti-Kulak (small farmers/industrialists) programme of attacks by Stalin (a Georgian not a Russian). It killed c3 million Ukrainians and c6 million Russians and Kazaks through starvation. A horrendous act of brutality but one targeted against a class rather than an ethnic group.
QuoteThe Holodomor - stated in the video to be purely anti-Ukrainian is interpreted by many (non-Russian) academics as part of a USSR wide anti-Kulak (small farmers/industrialists) programme of attacks by Stalin (a Georgian not a Russian). It killed c3 million Ukrainians and c6 million Russians and Kazaks through starvation. A horrendous act of brutality but one targeted against a class rather than an ethnic group.
Nevertheless, given that the video focuses on Ukraine's relationship with Russia, I somehow have the feeling that knowing that it wasn't only targeted at them is not going to make Ukrainians feel any better about the prospect of life under Kremlin rule and that self-determination as an independent country is more appealing instead.
[Note: The numbers vary enormously depending on which source one chooses to quote, the exact number of deaths being impossible to calculate due to lack of records. Of the numerous sources I looked at for the wider Great Russian Famine of 1930-33, not one estimates such a low proportion of Ukrainian deaths to the overall total of deaths as yours. Most of the sources estimate between 3 to 5 million Ukrainians out of 5.5 to 8.7 million deaths overall (the others didn't give sub-totals for Ukraine, etc.). The closest (and lowest) I found to your assertion was 3.9 million in Ukraine out of a total estimate of 8.7 - roughly 45% (50% more than the 33% estimate stated by you). The highest was c.66% - the opposite from your figures.]
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 05 October 2022, 04:29:08 PMI wonder how many forum contributors would be supporters of Putin; if only they had been born in Russia.
I'd imagine a few, we're all probably guilty of seeing the world through the perspective of our own cultures. It's the same as religion, if you have a chosen deity it'll generally be the one of your region rather than a particular ideology that you identify with.
Conquest (1986) total famine deaths 7 million.
Davies and Wheatcroft (2004) 5.5 to 6.5 million deaths.
Ellman (2005) about eight and a half million victims. (famine and repression 1930-33)
Victor Kondrashin(Russian famine historian) between 5 and 7 million victims.
Russian historical demographers(Polyakov and Zhiromskaya, eds, 2000) 7.2 to 10.8 million
In 2008, Russian State Duma(State Duma,2008): within the territories of the Volga Region, the Central Black Earth Region, Northern Caucasus, Ural, Crimea, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus, 7 million people .
There are others estimates.
As for percentages of victim ethnicity (if we think Russians and Ukrainians are ethnically distinct-?) I quite like the footnote in the draft version of Andrei Markevich, Natalya Naumenko and Nancy Qian's paper 'The Soviet Great Famine, 1932–33' Sept 2020:
'There are no reliable comprehensive data on the ethnic composition of famine victims.'
By July 2021, in the published version: 'THE POLITICAL-ECONOMIC CAUSES OF THE SOVIET GREAT FAMINE, 1932–33'National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge Mass. Working Paper 29089 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29089/w29089.pdf), they had decided they did have enough data after all and that Ukrainians suffered disproportionately.
They say that this was not a result of a higher proportion of Kulaks in Ukraine. (This is disputed by other independent historical analysis.)
They estimate that between 30% and 45% of victims were Ukrainian despite Ukrainians accounting (in their calculation) for only 21% of the population at the time.
What does that suggest?
One - if you want to publish make sure you know what people want to hear.
Two - the Ukrainian diaspora in the US is a very vocal and powerful lobby.
Three - Between 70% and 55% were 'collateral damage' if this was an anti-Ukrainian policy.
QuoteWhat does that suggest?
One - if you want to publish make sure you know what people want to hear.
Two - the Ukrainian diaspora in the US is a very vocal and powerful lobby.
Three - Between 70% and 55% were 'collateral damage' if this was an anti-Ukrainian policy.
After watching this video, I was left wondering, "Doesn't Ukraine have an older and more valid case for arguing that the ancient 'Rus' lands (including Moscow and St. Petersburg) should be transferred to Ukraine given that the capital of the 'Rus' lands was Kyiv?" ;D
Anyway, the thing about the word "suggest" is that it is speculation and not fact.
On your three points:-
One - You should add ".... or what
you want them to hear?" (e.g. "3 out of 9 million" is what you wanted us to hear when all other sources clearly said otherwise)
Two - I didn't know there was one (please tell us who they are) but, if so, good for them. And who is surprised? For example, the Polonium / Litvinenko affair and the Salisbury poisoning on UK soil recklessly putting UK citizens at risk hardly endears Russia to us in the UK. And with the illegal annexation of Crimea and shooting down of Malaysia Flight 17 by a Russian missile, with that kind of behaviour, what chance has a Russian lobby got in the USA?
Three - You've based your final figures on one source despite the existence of numerous, other sources so it is coming across that you're trying to disinform by changing the proportions to suit your agenda. The majority of sources estimate that a minimum of 45% who died were Ukrainian so, at the most, the max "collateral damage," as you assert, is 55%, not 70%. Nor does the video specifically say the genocide was against Ukrainians (although given the focus of the video I can see why one might think that). Ethnically speaking, and although each has its own language, Russians and Ukrainians are Slavs. And given the widespread application of that brutal policy, it was "genocidal" in a sense in that it was against a specific group (i.e, anti-kulak). But when a specific group loses 3 to 5 million of its own people due to a deliberatly callous policy of starvation and deprivation, rightly or wrongly, can you blame them for taking it personally? How would your community react to that?
QuoteOn your three points:-
One - You should add ".... or what you want them to hear?" (e.g. "3 out of 9 million" is what you wanted us to hear when all other sources clearly said otherwise)
All other sources? I gave you one that had a (slightly) lower minimum. There are lower estimates but I distrust them as biased, as I distrust the 66% you quoted which is a wild outlier.
QuoteTwo - I didn't know there was one (please tell us who they are)
1.1 million self identifying Ukrainians in the US. I've known several of the ones in US Government service.
QuoteThree - You've based your final figures on one source despite the existence of numerous, other sources so it is coming across that you're trying to disinform by changing the proportions to suit your agenda.
Which final figures? The 30% -45% giving the 70%-55% 'collateral damage'? That article I regard as a fair synthesis if slightly slanted towards the idea of a deliberate attack on the Ukrainian population.
There is no precise source figure for the number of deaths from starvation in the Ukrainian SSR.
The lowest I've found is 2.2 million excess deaths in 1933: Chapter 1 La crise des anées 1930 by J. Vallin, F. Mesle, S. Adamets and S. Pyrozhkov from "Causes de décès en Ukraine au XXè siècle. p.30.
The highest c10 million by US diaspora publications and Ukrainian nationalist politicians.
Ukrainian famine historian SV Kulchitsky estimates 3.2 million. Submissions in the genocide cases in Ukraine said c3.9 million.
V Kondrashin (Russian) generally accepted Kulchitsky's figures for Ukraine and estimates between 4 and 5 million non Ukrainian famine deaths in 1932-3 as a low estimate.
I have changed no proportions.
My agenda is a healthy uncertainty and a rejection of the contention the Soviet wide famine was a specifically anti-Ukrainian action.
QuoteThe majority of sources estimate that a minimum of 45% who died were Ukrainian so, at the most, the max "collateral damage," as you assert, is 55%, not 70%.
I have not conducted a meta analysis of all 'sources' but from what I have read the consensus of unbiased analysis puts 45% at the top end (with the huge caveat that accurate quantification of all deaths never mind accurate identification of victims' 'ethnicity' is almost impossible).
A combination of Kulchitsky's and Kondrashin's estimates give a 37%-46% range for the percentage of Ukrainian deaths.
QuoteNor does the video specifically say the genocide was against Ukrainians (although given the focus of the video I can see why one might think that).
Minute 8: 'the Holodomor was a state sponsored famine created by Stalin's Government in the Ukraine as an act of genocide.'
@ Gwydion: What's funny is that the above must have taken you ages yet it hasn't changed a single thing. I am going to resist responding to your comments many of which I find selective and distortive because it must be getting boring for everyone else and I really can't be bothered arguing with you for the rest of eternity.
As I said from the very start, "the numbers vary enormously depending on which source one chooses to quote, the exact number of deaths being impossible to calculate due to lack of records".
In other words, no .. one .. knows.
[Right. It must be someone else's turn to wind Gwydion up.]
Could you two be less civil, then could tell you off. :D
And you've drifted off topic to something historical. =O
Drat! Curses! Humbug! Pshaw!
That offensive enough? :)
I do slightly object to the idea of being accused of being selective. I have said why I deliberately avoided Soviet apologist figures and and the more extreme end of Ukrainian nationalist claims.
The standard 'deliberate starvation' model was probably fully expressed by Robert Conquest in 'Harvest of Sorrow'*. The standard 'revisionist' (as in they actually looked at the documentation available) position is Davies and Wheatcroft's 'The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933' 2004.
Didn't take too much time- the Soviet Union and its breakup being something of a hangover interest from work in the eighties.
*Conquest was virulently anti-Soviet (weren't we all) and over egged many of his historical puddings. He later denied that he meant the famine was intentional but rather that it could have been prevented and Stalin failed to do that. Evidence which came to light later shows that Stalin remitted the grain appropriation from Ukraine by 28% between August and October 1932 when it became clear there was famine and the USSR sent 325,000 tonnes of grain seed loans and relief to Ukraine between Feb and June 1933.