Ukraine Watch...

[UndercoverElephant]

I’m really not sure that some of you get this. It really doesn’t matter how our (western) propaganda portrays this. Or whatever personal opinions we may have. The driving force behind this is that Russia sees this as a fight instigated by the US for its (Russia’s) very existence.

How could Russia cease to exist? Russia exists because whoever controls Moscow controls all of the land east of that point in Eurasia, provided it has the co-operation of China. Russia's western border is irrelevant to this fact.

[PS_RalphW]

If by Russia default options means the deeply corrupt oliarchy which has siphoned off the vast wealth from sale of Russians natural resources for 30 years whilst leaving the state infrastructure to crumble and become increasingly obsolete, and the people under an ever stronger police state, then Russia is under threat from political reform or internal revolt. All dictatorships see themselves as under attack from evil foreign empires, it is how they justify subjugating their own people. orwel is as prescient now as he was in 1948.

[BritDownUnder]

I expect that the free world can build anti tank missiles faster than Russia can build tanks.

That's the thing. Russia prided itself on its ability to wage asymmetric warfare. But the joke is on them this time. The other guy is destroying their $2m tank with a $20k missile or a $20m ship with a $200k missile.

The West needs to keep it as this kind of battle and avoid more serious entanglements. Keep it asymmetric, keep it cheap and plentiful. Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap like the founder of Tesco said. I would like to see a super cheap, guided anti-personnel weapon coming to this theatre soon. Even dropping something like a crowbar from a drone on a person would be enough to send them to the next world fairly cheaply. In WW1 they were called flechettes and dropped from aircraft but as they were not guided they were not effective. The Americans something similar called Lazy Dogs.

Perhaps the UK diplomatic reply to the Russian diplomatic note about meddling should mention Salisbury poisoning, IRA support, hacking attacks and supplying intelligence to Argentine during the Falklands War just to mention a few. It is looking like the Russo-Japanese War all over again.

[Stumuz2]

I’m really not sure that some of you get this. It really doesn’t matter how our (western) propaganda portrays this. Or whatever personal opinions we may have. The driving force behind this is that Russia sees this as a fight instigated by the US for its (Russia’s) very existence.

Okay. Start from the beginning. A sovereign country has been invaded.
What should the world do about it? Just shouting it's a conspiracy is a bit 911 was a false flag, or they never landed on the moon. A major nuclear power has engaged in a massive military invasion. And you want to portray Putin as the victim.

This whole thing could be over if the US would just stop poking the bear. (Europe has no voice in this - the US is more than happy, and maybe even intends, to throw us under the bus).

Let's just turn that round to show the absurdity in your statement.

'This whole thing could be over if the Russia would just surrender and stop the illegal invasion'

[Stumuz2]

>> Britain was sending high tech lethal weapons before the invasion.

I don't know what you call it, but that sounds like irresponsible meddling to me.

I disagree. Sending the Nlaws and other high tech weapons, dramatically altered the outcome of the original invasion. It will alter the outcome of future conflicts. Who is going to invest in 1000's of tanks when they can be opened like a tin of beans? Come to that, surface navies have had a bit of an existential crises since the Moskva.

The history of the last 100 years in Europe has seen borders in flux by dint of better use of force to re-draw them. Could this be coming to an end?

[Stumuz2]

That's the thing. Russia prided itself on its ability to wage asymmetric warfare. But the joke is on them this time.

Agree. I was reading that early on during the invasion (special military operation for conspiracy theorists) that local Ukrainian girls were being told how to use tinder/dating apps to arrange factious meet ups with the young Russian conscripts. Their exact locations the Russian soldiers were constantly monitored by Ukrainian forces.
They have since had their smart phones confiscated which is causing huge resentment.
Who would have thought that the biggest threat to Putin was a smartphone and the desire to stay connected in the virtual world?

[Stumuz2]

I’m really not sure that some of you get this. It really doesn’t matter how our (western) propaganda portrays this. Or whatever personal opinions we may have.

Eliot Higgins the founder of Bellingcat, of Open Source Intelligence (Osint) investigations, the people who uncovered who shot down MH17 and who poisoned the Skripals in Salisbury, describe your attempts at counter narratives quite well.

“There are certain people [here] who would defend Russia no matter what, because it fits with their world view that anyone who’s against the US or the West must be good. They bend over backwards to excuse Putin’s war crimes because they see him as against the West, so he must be OK.”

[Default0ptions]

Let's just turn that round to show the absurdity in your statement.

'This whole thing could be over if the Russia would just surrender and stop the illegal invasion'

That would work too. Why do you consider it absurd?

[Default0ptions]

I’m really not sure that some of you get this. It really doesn’t matter how our (western) propaganda portrays this. Or whatever personal opinions we may have.

Eliot Higgins the founder of Bellingcat, of Open Source Intelligence (Osint) investigations, the people who uncovered who shot down MH17 and who poisoned the Skripals in Salisbury, describe your attempts at counter narratives quite well.

“There are certain people [here] who would defend Russia no matter what, because it fits with their world view that anyone who’s against the US or the West must be good. They bend over backwards to excuse Putin’s war crimes because they see him as against the West, so he must be OK.”

That’s his opinion. It really doesn’t matter either.

[Default0ptions]

Okay. Start from the beginning. A sovereign country has been invaded.

Simple question: Why was it invaded?

[Stumuz2]

Okay. Start from the beginning. A sovereign country has been invaded.

Simple question: Why was it invaded?

Before you get to why. Is one sovreign country allowed to invade another?

Always start at the beginning. Avoids confusion.

[Stumuz2]

I’m really not sure that some of you get this. It really doesn’t matter how our (western) propaganda portrays this. Or whatever personal opinions we may have.

Eliot Higgins the founder of Bellingcat, of Open Source Intelligence (Osint) investigations, the people who uncovered who shot down MH17 and who poisoned the Skripals in Salisbury, describe your attempts at counter narratives quite well.

“There are certain people [here] who would defend Russia no matter what, because it fits with their world view that anyone who’s against the US or the West must be good. They bend over backwards to excuse Putin’s war crimes because they see him as against the West, so he must be OK.”

That’s his opinion. It really doesn’t matter either.

But his organisation makes hitherto unobtainable intelligence, obtainable.
He works from making verifiable facts public, and you don't.
So his facts matter a lot.

[Stumuz2]

Let's just turn that round to show the absurdity in your statement.

'This whole thing could be over if the Russia would just surrender and stop the illegal invasion'

That would work too. Why do you consider it absurd?

Because we know it would never happen. You do not illegally invade a sovereign country to immediately surrender.

[Default0ptions]

Okay. Start from the beginning. A sovereign country has been invaded.

Simple question: Why was it invaded?

Before you get to why. Is one sovreign country allowed to invade another?

Always start at the beginning. Avoids confusion.

So tell me; is one sovereign country allowed to invade another?

[Default0ptions]

Let's just turn that round to show the absurdity in your statement.

'This whole thing could be over if the Russia would just surrender and stop the illegal invasion'

That would work too. Why do you consider it absurd?

Because we know it would never happen. You do not illegally invade a sovereign country to immediately surrender.

So the invasion was not purposeless then?