War in Ukraine

[turbovol]

Putin had his henchmen poison Navalny, then when the opposition politician made the mistake of returning to Russia, Putin arrested
him for no reason and threw him in prison. In the months and years since Navalny was tortured, fed poorly, denied medical treatment, sent
to a Siberian prison with freezing conditions--and a few days ago was murdered. Putin had Russians arrested for placing flowers at a Navalny shrine in Moscow. Now, Putin won't let his mother have his body so that she and her family can bury him properly. We are talking about a truly sinister, diabolical regime.

From The Guardian, today:

Alexei Navalny's mother: "If I do not agree to a secret funeral, they'll do something with my son's body"​

In a video released on social media, Alexei Navalny’s mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, said that she recorded a video because investigators were “threatening” her, AFP reports.

Navalnaya, who said she was taken secretly to a morgue to view her son’s body, said that Russian officials are blackmailing her over the conditions for where, when and how her son should be buried.

“I want that for those of you for whom Alexei is dear, for everyone for whom his death became a personal tragedy, to have the possibility to say goodbye to him,” AFP reports her saying.

“Looking me in the eye, they said that if I do not agree to a secret funeral, they’ll do something with my son’s body ... I ask for my son’s body to be given to me immediately,” she added.

 

[volbound1700]

Right he's a relic, a throwback to our less civilized and barbaric human history. That's kind of my point.

I partially agree. I think this mentality of the "modern" world benefits the USA and some of its allies but keeps the rest of the world down. I think that is why we see so many nations trying to challenge it today.

Is it the correct path? Possibly. However, it is very easy for the USA to take that position because of what we have inherited and currently own as a nation.

 

[jp1]

Pro-War Russian Blogger Commits Suicide – Reports - The Moscow Times

Prominent pro-war blogger and Russian soldier Andrei Morozov has reportedly committed suicide after upsetting his commanders for disclosing high military casualties in Moscow's recent capture of the eastern Ukrainian town of Avdiivka. Morozov, known by his call sign “Murz,” regularly criticized...

www.google.com

 

[Pacer92]

so Stalin should have just surrendered to Hitler and given up western Russia?

war is always about breaking the will of the other. its funny that you hate on our politicians for being limp wristed when it comes to our war making; but here you are championing giving up as soon as things look bad.

Germany wasn’t built for a war of attrition…Stalin had millions of disposable lives. So, are you suggesting Zelensky do the same? In a war he’s not gonna win…

Hating on our politicians for not making war? Did you just make this up?

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Pro-War Russian Blogger Commits Suicide – Reports - The Moscow Times

Prominent pro-war blogger and Russian soldier Andrei Morozov has reportedly committed suicide after upsetting his commanders for disclosing high military casualties in Moscow's recent capture of the eastern Ukrainian town of Avdiivka. Morozov, known by his call sign “Murz,” regularly criticized...

www.google.com

Oh no?

 

[evillawyer]

Congrats @Rasputin_Vol and @volgr, you can claim America's "smartest" senator as a comrade.

 

[volgr]

You seem to hold Putin in high regard. Putin has his political opponents killed. Dissidents fall out of windows at rates unheard of.

I'm not a fan of our domestic leaders at all but you must understand how your fluffing of Putin has a very negative effect on your credibility right?

I dont buy the western propaganda narrative of Putin, is probably a better way to say it. Our political leaders may not murder their political opponents but our foreign policy for the last 30 or 40 years has brought nothing but death and destruction every where it goes. The West has no moral high ground when it come to calling others, "murderous thugs". It is time WE take an honest look in the mirror.

 

[LouderVol]

I would arguing that going to war might be to the benefit of a people and maybe the best choice of a leader. History is full of nations that went to war and grew because of it. Winning wars is, sometimes, the greatest method to advance your nation and your people's standard of living.

Look at the Empires of Antiquity. Macedon grew because of Alexander and Phillip (as well as Greece as a whole), Rome grew because of the wars with Carthage, Greek states, Celts, etc.

Europe was no different. Wars of expansion and colonialism grew England, France, Portugal, Castile (which became Spain), Brandenburg (which became Prussia and then Germany), etc. until world super powers and brought prosperity and wealth to their nations.

Even the USA would not be where it is currently without the war of 1812 securing our borders to the Mississippi and in the North, the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-America War, the numerous wars against Native Americans, and the Spanish-American War.

USA gained significant territory, wealth, and resources from warfare and by committing "war crimes". Now we want to judge the rest of the world when we have 1/4 to 1/3 of the land mass of Continental North America, more eligible farmland than any nation on Earth, and countless Natural Resources. Other nations don't have these resources so you can't blame them, at times, for wanting war to expand their territory or obtain resources to make life better for their people or make their nation stronger.

I totally think Putin went to war with Ukraine to expand borders and take resources from Ukraine. I don't think it was about NATO or the other stuff he keeps pandering. I do believe that he sincerely thought Ukraine wouldn't put up much of a fight and sincerely believes Ukraine is "Russian".

At the same time, I have a hard time calling him a murderous thugs when most leaders in human history did the same or worse than him. I can agree Hitler or Stalin were a special variety of evil due to genocides that they willingly committed. That separates them from other problematic dictators. I also think those are the type of leaders that should really be tried for war crimes.

I do think Putin is playing a very dangerous game and is perhaps the greatest threat to get the World into a major World War today. However, his track record, to date, still doesn't put him on the same footing as a truly evil dictator like a Hitler, Tojo, or Stalin.

you are conflating a couple different issues.

the acts of war and the various results of it are one thing, and deservedly get an asterisk when comparing them to times of peace.

the issue at hand with Putin is his treatment of citizens, and that extends beyond the current war. its been an issue the whole time he has been in power. that is something we can compare to his contemporaries.

I, at least, didn't take the murderous thug comment to mean, or just mean, the war in Ukraine. I took it to include his handling of opponents, both in his country and out of it. he had has plenty of people killed, poisons, the ubiquitous 8th floor window, gun shots, and just straight up disappearing. thats much more "murderous". or to semi-quote Stalin, kill an individual and you are a murder, kill a million people in a war and you are a war hero.

my take on him and his methods is they make Russia strong, but brittle. it won't take a very big knock to cause major issues. which is why I think its short sited to compare Putin to anyone on your list, Putin isn't dealing with their problems, he is dealing with the modern problems. Putin has to date done a good job sheltering that vulnerable corner, he is smart enough to know what it is. the people in the major cities. he can round up tens of thousands of people from eastern Russia, central russia, siberia, southern russia and the various neighbors. no one in the major cities care. the issues of Putin aren't real to them, so they aren't going to have a problem with Putin. once they are impacted, things will change fast.

 

[KB5252]

I partially agree. I think this mentality of the "modern" world benefits the USA and some of its allies but keeps the rest of the world down. I think that is why we see so many nations trying to challenge it today.

Is it the correct path? Possibly. However, it is very easy for the USA to take that position because of what we have inherited and currently own as a nation.

Eh, I think with most major developed countries this is looked down upon. Even within China they keep their laundry clean. When they recently removed a former high level political figure they did it quietly and discreetly. Opposition isn't allowed at all.

Russia on the other hand went a little too western to ever get the lid completely back on the jar. I don't understand why Putin would assassinate his political opponents though, considering they have as much chance as I do of winning that election. I thinks it's ego with Putin..... Which is much more like the historical list you mentioned earlier. In other words with nations like China it's strictly business, in Putin's Russia it's personal.

 

[LouderVol]

Germany wasn’t built for a war of attrition…Stalin had millions of disposable lives. So, are you suggesting Zelensky do the same? In a war he’s not gonna win…

Hating on our politicians for not making war? Did you just make this up?

not sure how you can claim they were disposable lives. it was the same lost generation that Ukraine is facing. its all relative, not absolute. Zelensky probably doesn't need to kill 3 million Russians to win this war, and thus Zelensky doesn't need to lose almost 9 million soldiers.

I have said from the start this was the Winter War. Finland was able to get a white peace, which did include land loss, but they stopped the Russians. Bled Russia to the point where it didn't make sense to claim anymore land. didn't matter that Finland was similarly days/weeks from total collapse, they got the bigger, stronger Soviets to blink first. typically defenders are willing to sustain more losses to keep their land than the enemy is willing to take it. again its all relative, until one of the two blinks the war will continue. I won't sit here and pretend to say what the defender should be willing to accept.

not not-making war, not making war well. being willing to go all in on the war, for fighting with our gloves off, being willing to do the dirty work needed to win. its a constant refrain about how we have sucked at war for not dedicating ourselves to it. but here we are instead seeing that the same leaders should just give up. it seems contradictory.

 

[volbound1700]

Eh, I think with most major developed countries this is looked down upon. Even within China they keep their laundry clean. When they recently removed a former high level political figure they did it quietly and discreetly. Opposition isn't allowed at all.

Russia on the other hand went a little too western to ever get the lid completely back on the jar. I don't understand why Putin would assassinate his political opponents though, considering they have as much chance as I do of winning that election. I thinks it's ego with Putin..... Which is much more like the historical list you mentioned earlier. In other words with nations like China it's strictly business, in Putin's Russia it's personal.

Perhaps or maybe his opponent was more of a threat than we realize. I do think that the media coverage we get about Russia and its society is probably very poor and limited. I am still lost about the Wagner event and why the leader backed down as backing down was clearly has death warrant.

 

[BeardedVol]

Germany wasn’t built for a war of attrition…Stalin had millions of disposable lives. So, are you suggesting Zelensky do the same? In a war he’s not gonna win…

Hating on our politicians for not making war? Did you just make this up?

You can add "poor student of history" to your resume, right under the section on being a coward.

Stalin's meat wave tactics weren't winning them the war against Germany.

Lend-Lease kept the Soviets alive, and led to an Allied victory.

'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?

Ever since the Cold War, many Soviet and Russian politicians and academics have downplayed the role that U.S.-provided weapons and supplies played in the Red Army's ultimately victorious campaign against Hitler's Germany. But there is substantial evidence that the huge influx of materiel made an...

www.rferl.org

 

[volbound1700]

you are conflating a couple different issues.

the acts of war and the various results of it are one thing, and deservedly get an asterisk when comparing them to times of peace.

the issue at hand with Putin is his treatment of citizens, and that extends beyond the current war. its been an issue the whole time he has been in power. that is something we can compare to his contemporaries.

I, at least, didn't take the murderous thug comment to mean, or just mean, the war in Ukraine. I took it to include his handling of opponents, both in his country and out of it. he had has plenty of people killed, poisons, the ubiquitous 8th floor window, gun shots, and just straight up disappearing. thats much more "murderous". or to semi-quote Stalin, kill an individual and you are a murder, kill a million people in a war and you are a war hero.

my take on him and his methods is they make Russia strong, but brittle. it won't take a very big knock to cause major issues. which is why I think its short sited to compare Putin to anyone on your list, Putin isn't dealing with their problems, he is dealing with the modern problems. Putin has to date done a good job sheltering that vulnerable corner, he is smart enough to know what it is. the people in the major cities. he can round up tens of thousands of people from eastern Russia, central russia, siberia, southern russia and the various neighbors. no one in the major cities care. the issues of Putin aren't real to them, so they aren't going to have a problem with Putin. once they are impacted, things will change fast.

I really don't necessarily disagree with your points. Perhaps just stretching the mind here. It is easy for USA to take a certain position with what we have been dealt versus other nations.

Russia has a very different situation/layout vs. USA. In my mindset, Putin holds them back. He failed to industrialize properly, failed to address the population issues in Russia, apparently has a paper tiger military, and failed to properly work with the West. If I was the leader of Russia, I would see more to gain by joining groups like the EU and NATO and then pushing my views within them. EU is very divided and Russia could definitely take advantage of that as a member.

Last paragraph is spot on. He isn't just rounding up country-side Russians but actually ethnic minorities. For example, people from "problematic" regions of Russia such as Chechnya and Dagestan have seen far more significant conscriptions than heartland Russia. (at least from what we can tell/read. Again, media coverage is very limited at the moment).

 

[volbound1700]

You can add "poor student of history" to your resume, right under the section on being a coward.

Stalin's meat wave tactics weren't winning them the war against Germany.

Lend-Lease kept the Soviets alive, and led to an Allied victory.

View attachment 621893

'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?

Ever since the Cold War, many Soviet and Russian politicians and academics have downplayed the role that U.S.-provided weapons and supplies played in the Red Army's ultimately victorious campaign against Hitler's Germany. But there is substantial evidence that the huge influx of materiel made an...

www.rferl.org

The Napoleon comment is off. The Russian summer actually caused more havoc on his forces as the head wore on his horses and the muds messed up the carts. Either way, it is same mentality, though. Logistics. Russia was willing to burn itself to the ground to run Napoleon's army out of supply.

Napoleon would have been better off invading Russia with a smaller force of 200,000 or 100,000 that would be more elite.

Limited objectives would have helped too. (Secure Smolensk and Belarus first year. Secure Leningrad second year, secure Moscow third year).

Napoleon's invasion was all based on pomp to scare Russia into making peace but that failed spectacular.

Hitler's invasion was very different but failed for a lot of the same reasons.

Both underestimated the sheer size of Russia and how difficult it would be to maintain logistics and keep things running the further and deeper you went into Russia. Hitler's forces started running out of oil and his war machine was heavily impacted by the Luftwaffe which had limited impact once you got into the large landmass of mainland Russia. Luftwaffe also had to divert significant resources to defend Germany from strategic bombing raids and support the North African (later Italian) campaigns.

Russia has been successfully invaded and conquered in the past (Mongols and Poland). Poland is probably the best example of how to do it correctly in the 1600s as they didn't take Russia quickly but rather slowly integrated it over time. They took and ruled Moscow for decades prior to an uprising (I think Russia called it the time of troubles).

 

[jp1]

Oh no?

I'm guessing he got suicided.

 

[KB5252]

Perhaps or maybe his opponent was more of a threat than we realize. I do think that the media coverage we get about Russia and its society is probably very poor and limited. I am still lost about the Wagner event and why the leader backed down as backing down was clearly has death warrant.

Navalny wasn't a threat to take his office, he was however a political problem. Allow someone you tried to kill discreetly, but very poorly executed, to come back home to roost and defy you publicly....... That's a problem brewing, an obstacle to Putin's bigger plans of reunification and to proliferate.


I'm sure the coverage is slanted heavily but Russia is an odd society of people. It's more like unified tribute states. The two main centers of power working together and then the other regions with some having carved out better deals than others.

The Wagner thing was very odd. It tells me much of what was reported, that Russians were sent into meat grinders following old Russian tactics and otherwise lack of kit and modern mechanized resources. Prig went to far in moments of rage at fellow command chain then ultimately at Putin himself. Prig was a powerful man and a staunch Putin ally.

What I think happened was Prig held more influence abroad and on a personal level with Putin. But Putin needs backing of key Oligarchs in Russia, those Oligarchs are family, extended or otherwise of some of these key generals that Prig was blasting. As much as Putin may have wanted to back Prig he understood that doing that could put him in a precarious position with other powerful people in Russia. Namely their version of the MIC.

Plus when Prig repeatedly criticized the generals and ultimately Putin, then mobilized on Moscow he had to go. Historically anyone who has ever let that happen didn't last long. He brokered a deal to prevent Russian on Russian bloodshed, whether he ever intended on abiding by that deal, who knows. But the example was ultimately made and the problem was snuffed.

 

[Pacer92]

not sure how you can claim they were disposable lives. it was the same lost generation that Ukraine is facing. its all relative, not absolute. Zelensky probably doesn't need to kill 3 million Russians to win this war, and thus Zelensky doesn't need to lose almost 9 million soldiers.

I have said from the start this was the Winter War. Finland was able to get a white peace, which did include land loss, but they stopped the Russians. Bled Russia to the point where it didn't make sense to claim anymore land. didn't matter that Finland was similarly days/weeks from total collapse, they got the bigger, stronger Soviets to blink first. typically defenders are willing to sustain more losses to keep their land than the enemy is willing to take it. again its all relative, until one of the two blinks the war will continue. I won't sit here and pretend to say what the defender should be willing to accept.

not not-making war, not making war well. being willing to go all in on the war, for fighting with our gloves off, being willing to do the dirty work needed to win. its a constant refrain about how we have sucked at war for not dedicating ourselves to it. but here we are instead seeing that the same leaders should just give up. it seems contradictory.

Not sure how you claim they weren’t? Taking losses that your enemy can’t, wins the battle of attrition. Basic math.

Common sense says that Ukraine isnt going to win this.

What’s making war well? Killing more people…displacing more?! There’s always going to be an insurgency against our occupations. Winning would be not involving ourselves in the first place.

 

[Pacer92]

You can add "poor student of history" to your resume, right under the section on being a coward.

Stalin's meat wave tactics weren't winning them the war against Germany.

Lend-Lease kept the Soviets alive, and led to an

You can add "poor student of history" to your resume, right under the section on being a coward.

Stalin's meat wave tactics weren't winning them the war against Germany.

Lend-Lease kept the Soviets alive, and led to an Allied victory.

View attachment 621893

'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?

Ever since the Cold War, many Soviet and Russian politicians and academics have downplayed the role that U.S.-provided weapons and supplies played in the Red Army's ultimately victorious campaign against Hitler's Germany. But there is substantial evidence that the huge influx of materiel made an...

www.rferl.org

Allied victory.

View attachment 621893No

'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?

Ever since the Cold War, many Soviet and Russian politicians and academics have downplayed the role that U.S.-provided weapons and supplies played in the Red Army's ultimately victorious campaign against Hitler's Germany. But there is substantial evidence that the huge influx of materiel made an...

www.rferl.org

Lend-lease helped some early until the Soviets could relocate factories away from the advancing Germans…but, this didn’t win them the war against Germany, igno..

The Soviets were willing to pay the price human-wise…and did.

 

[BeardedVol]

Lend-lease helped some early until the Soviets could relocate factories away from the advancing Germans…but, this didn’t win them the war against Germany, igno..

The Soviets were willing to pay the price human-wise…and did.

Lol "helped some".

 

[Pacer92]

Lol "helped some".

View attachment 621927

Exactly…helped some.

The biggest factors in defeating Germany…available manpower, the sheer vastness of Russia, Barbarossa being overstretched…plus tactical blunders, Germany’s incompetent allies, devoting valuable resources to western front and the resiliency of the the Soviet people and it’s own wartime industrialization. All bigger factors than lend-lease..

 

[BeardedVol]

How's your bank account @Rasputin_Vol ?

 

[BeardedVol]

Exactly…helped some.

The biggest factors in defeating Germany…available manpower, the sheer vastness of Russia, Barbarossa being overstretched…plus tactical blunders, Germany’s incompetent allies, devoting valuable resources to western front and the resiliency of the the Soviet people and it’s own wartime industrialization. All bigger factors than lend-lease..

Lol, highlighted to help you with reading comprehension.

 

[Pacer92]

Lol, highlighted to help you with reading comprehension.
View attachment 621945

Lol

 

[BreatheUT]

Congrats @Rasputin_Vol and @volgr, you can claim America's "smartest" senator as a comrade.

You post tweets from the dumbest X accounts. Turbo level.

 

[BreatheUT]

I dont buy the western propaganda narrative of Putin, is probably a better way to say it. Our political leaders may not murder their political opponents but our foreign policy for the last 30 or 40 years has brought nothing but death and destruction every where it goes. The West has no moral high ground when it come to calling others, "murderous thugs". It is time WE take an honest look in the mirror.

The Obama/Biden era threw the middle east into chaos.