Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[Wilhelm44]

Seeing reports of Chinese soldiers captured in Ukraine on BBC.  Hopefully it was just North Koreans. 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Seeing reports of Chinese soldiers captured in Ukraine on BBC.  Hopefully it was just North Koreans. 

Russia has been hiring Chinese, Indians, all kinds of nationalities for soldiers.

[Wilhelm44]

34 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Russia has been hiring Chinese, Indians, all kinds of nationalities for soldiers.

Aha, so it's not like the Chinese have officially joined forces.

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Aha, so it's not like the Chinese have officially joined forces.

 

This video below is 9 months old. Chinese hired by Russia as soldiers.

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

 

This video below is 9 months old. Chinese hired by Russia as soldiers.

 

 

Wow, thanks, even looks like there was a South African soldier there.

[PurpleTree]

 

 

[zazen]

Pretty nuts. Numbers not fully confirmed but apparently 40 Russian planes destroyed by Ukrainian drones deep inside Russian territory.

At a cost of $2 billion and which are irreplaceable in the short term - destroyed by drones for under an $1k each. Asymmetric warfare at its best.

Possibly a turning point in the war - and a huge escalation from Russia in the making - whilst Ukraine and the West celebrate in the interim.

 

Edited Sunday at 04:44 PM by zazen

[BlueOak]

Yeah its an excellent strike because it goes directly to Russia's nuclear threat.
 

Recently, there has been an upturn in taking this out, both the missiles, the bombers, the subs and locating the sites.

Instead of giving Nukes to Ukraine to end the war, they are taking out Russia's nukes bit by bit. This will help them reach a stalemate quicker, and halt the war in Ukraine, which is the goal. Also it helps stop Russia fighting wars with impunity.

Edited Monday at 07:10 AM by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Yeah its an excellent strike because it goes directly to Russia's nuclear threat.

Recently, there has been an upturn in taking this out, both the missiles, the bombers, the subs and locating the sites.

Instead of giving Nukes to Ukraine to end the war, they are taking out Russia's nukes bit by bit. This will help them reach a stalemate quicker, and halt the war in Ukraine, which is the goal. Also it helps stop Russia fighting wars with impunity.

What if the Russians launch retalitatory strikes on US-Nato nuclear bases through its nuclear submarines patrolling the american and european coastlines !

it can lead to a nuclear war and holocaust wiping out the russians, Americans and europeans .

Hope the west has a contingency plan for this. Only Switzerland at present has nuclear bunkers for all its citizens, and it is not even part of nato and hence not subject to attack.

[BlueOak]

18 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

What if the Russians launch retalitatory strikes on US-Nato nuclear bases through its nuclear submarines patrolling the american and european coastlines !

it can lead to a nuclear war and holocaust wiping out the russians, Americans and europeans .

Hope the west has a contingency plan for this. Only Switzerland at present has nuclear bunkers for all its citizens, and it is not even part of nato and hence not subject to attack.

Of course it can, that has been the threat since they invaded. At the very start of this conflict, you'll see I rationalised all of this from that fear based perspective also. I was saying exactly what you are, with some minor differences. Back then I didn't consider 'west' vs 'east' useful labels; I still don't, I think it broadens the violent aspects of this conflict unnecessarily. You can certainly make cases, as others do that supplying arms is the same as using them, but I don't believe it is at all. Mostly because someone is always going to sell guns when people have the will to use them.

Steps are now being taken to neutralise this continual strategic threat. That was Russia's choice to overuse it. As its going to be continual, and people won't live with that. There has been zero indication of any change in their strategic positioning; nukes are their constant political pressure, and this is the result of going to that threat by default. There is a cold war, and like in the cold war these strategic assets are targets. Like how the rise of cyber attacks has mysteriously increased in england, these kinds of strategic hits are what that entails. You can certainly say, and will, that there has been little change in the West's perspective also if you want to use that term; there has but it's mostly been to take a more aggressive stance against Russia and unify NATO more.

But then if you insist on using such broad labels, you'll only get small shifts in overall perspective or viewpoint. If you narrow your focus, you can see much more measurable changes, and hope to influence, or accurately reflect them more.

tl;dr if Ukraine and Russia both want to stop fighting, it won't matter one iota what the 'west' or 'east' collectively want.

**I realise I am using the neutralising polarity argument, and diminishing wider strategic influences, that's because it has the potential to work toward peace.

Edited Monday at 08:36 AM by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

12 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

You can certainly say, and will, that there has been little change in the West's perspective also if you want to use that term; there has but it's mostly been to take a more aggressive stance against Russia and unify NATO more.

But is it worth taking such a gamble against Russia with its nuclear arsenal, larger than both the us and france-uk combined !

There can also be third parties who wish such a scenario of nuclear holocaust to happen, seeing the us, nato-europe and russia as adversaries and are plotting moves in this regard. Three birds with the same stone would be a major strategic victory for such.

I am hoping that the US, Europe and Russia has contingency plans to evacuate survivors to safer countries or zones in case of nuclear war. 

The UN can also play a major role in this regard as well.

Edited Monday at 08:45 AM by Ajay0

[BlueOak]

8 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

But is it worth taking such a gamble against Russia with its nuclear arsenal, larger than both the us and france-uk combined !

There can also be third parties who wish such a scenario of nuclear holocaust to happen, seeing the us, nato-europe and russia as adversaries and are plotting moves in this regard. 

I am hoping that the US, Europe and Russia has contingency plans to evacuate survivors to safer countries or zones in case of nuclear war. 

The UN can also play a major role in this regard as well.

That is brinkmanship, and it's a two way endeavour. 

If you ask me, is brinkmanship worth it when everyone has nukes: I would answer hell no. I would talk about the absurdity of fighting of a few KM's of land inside a spec of dust in infinity etc. Of entire realities being constructed in people's minds, an infinite wealth of experience and perspective only to end in a bullet or bomb. Its archaic, it's absurd and it needs to end.

If you ask me, should Russia be able to continually threaten nukes with no response: I would answer hell no.  This is just what happens. People take the threat away. Its what Russia has tried to do to the west, take away the threat of being closer to their borders. Ditto countries wanting protection from Russia. You can see how it works both ways. Both are reasoning from fear, which never leads to favorable outcomes long term.

Again you can justify and do the Russian position, I can try to justify the west's position, if you want the collective term (I would mostly focus on eastern europe). But it doesn't negate that its all fear-based. So either the fear needs to be reframed or addressed on both sides, and fear needs to stop being amplified by both sides to be used as a reason to escalate further conflict or mistrust

Edited Monday at 08:51 AM by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

19 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If you ask me, should Russia be able to continually threaten nukes with no response: I would answer hell no.  This is just what happens. People take the threat away. Its what Russia has tried to do to the west, take away the threat of being closer to their borders. Ditto countries wanting protection from Russia. You can see how it works both ways. Both are reasoning from fear, which never leads to favorable outcomes long term.
 

 But again, is all this worth the risk !

The US, russia, Europe can cease to exist or if they survive by any means, will become the new sick men of the world with extensive genetic damage due to radioactive exposure.

Future generations of  historians and students would perceive this as a case study of what happens when myopic leaders are not able to see the bigger picture.

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Yeah its an excellent strike because it goes directly to Russia's nuclear threat.

Yes sure, Russia has 5800 nukes, 1,800 mounted on ballistic missiles, and many more stored for installation. Why do they say that destroying a few planes diminishes Russia's nuclear attack capability? It's totally stupid. Just launching 100 missiles is goodbye to everyone. The nonsense being told on the news is incredible

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes sure, Russia has 5800 nukes, 1,800 mounted on ballistic missiles, and many more stored for installation. Why do they say that destroying a few planes diminishes Russia's nuclear attack capability? It's totally stupid. Just launching 100 missiles is goodbye to everyone. The nonsense being told on the news is incredible

Knocking out 30% of Russia's strategic bombers is huge, both for the conventional war and their ability to launch missiles.

Also the leaking of their strategic nuclear information is also disarming, and the attacks on the sub for example. As well as their ability to produce missiles to carry the warheads. 

I understand Russia will need to downplay this to the utmost, as any country would, but from an objective perspective, its a big blow. Apparently one of those drone cluster launches was from right outside an FSB building.

*Also if you believe this attack had little effect, you've nothing to worry about right? No big deal? So if another happens, its just a few bombers right? I don't know how many times Russians and their supporters can tell themselves that before they are looking at a hollow husk of a military and country, but hey ho.

Edited Monday at 12:31 PM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 But again, is all this worth the risk !

The US, russia, Europe can cease to exist or if they survive by any means, will become the new sick men of the world with extensive genetic damage due to radioactive exposure.

Future generations of  historians and students would perceive this as a case study of what happens when myopic leaders are not able to see the bigger picture.

They can cease to exist with Russia's and BRICS expansion also, certainly in the current form, the authoritarians pushing outward is having vast effects across western countries. Russia is creating what they say they don't want by putting them into a nationalist, fearful, protective mindset. (Exactly what Russia experiences by them doing the same.) Though a part of this war is so the decline of an empire in Russia, and an authoritarian fascist regime requiring an opponent to exist, so they need that villain in the narrative. A bit like the western governments are being reshaped to require sustaining the leaders or parties that hold that view.

So is war worth it, no never.

Is it worth it with what's being directed at them yes, especially given what i've just described above.

This how the west as you call it reasons now, and although i've been seeing the first signs of the right-wing authoritarian push slowing in England and America for example, it's directly related to Russia and BRICS slowing their pressure also. 

Edited Monday at 12:56 PM by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

but from an objective perspective, its a big blow

Its a big blow but not from a nuclear perspective. To say that it diminishes Russia's nuclear capability because instead of being able to launch 5,000 nuclear bombs, it could only launch 3,700 is nonsensical. I suppose you'll agree. If nukes start everything is finished, those people in the news say those things because they need the audience, but everyone knows that nukes is not an option 

The problem with this successful attack is that put Russia in the need of a revenge for their public opinion. Not good for Ukraine. Do their want a total war with Russia? Kiev would be like Gaza 

Edited Monday at 01:49 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

On 17/10/2024 at 2:35 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

Not the rouge regime who wants to sell his own country to their capitalist overlords. 

that has already sold you mean I guess 

Edited Monday at 01:57 PM by Breakingthewall

[BlueOak]

27 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Its a big blow but not from a nuclear perspective. To say that it diminishes Russia's nuclear capability because instead of being able to launch 5,000 nuclear bombs, it could only launch 3,700 is nonsensical. I suppose you'll agree. If nukes start everything is finished, those people in the news say those things because they need the audience, but everyone knows that nukes is not an option 

The problem with this successful attack is that put Russia in the need of a revenge for their public opinion. Not good for Ukraine. Do their want a total war with Russia? Kiev would be like Gaza 

Well we are arguing in the language of insanity, which is war but I will try to represent the opposite position to you:

These are not the first hits Russia has suffered to its ability to deploy nukes, not even the first bombers hit, though they are the most significant. When taken as a wider strategic action, such as teams inside Russia, hitting missile production, partisans sabotaging sites, revealing nuclear sites, drone waves, drone deployment from inside Russia itself to be used against them, clamping down on the technologies required to maintain a nuclear arsenal and launch it, knocking out warning systems etc, its all part of a wider strategic plan to remove or lessen the threat. You say 3,700 nukes would launch, of course they wouldn't, not only because they wouldn't launch, but because many would be knocked out before they got their missiles off, especially with an increasingly eroding capacity to fire them.

As for a full mobilisation, Russia is almost at its capacity to gear such a mobilization. I know I know when I talk to the BRICS supporters they will tell me its barely touched and the economy's fine, which is completely nonsensical (nobody's economy's great for a start). They don't have the capacity to push for major offensives anymore, their stockpiles are depleted. Neither side does, that's the point really, to reach a stalemate. One of the only things stopping that is Russia can keep saying they'll nuke if they don't get their way, so it's time to remove that ability, or at least show it's possible if the war continues.

Defang the opponent. Sadhguru was talking about 'the West' when he made that comment to a student, but it works in all scenarios. That's some of BRICs position, and the West is now reflecting it. (or parts of the west if we must use the collective name).

But yes in a more aware state of mind we can say one nuke is utterly insane, but it's been threatened every week, as I said at the very start of this war, the threat diminishes and diminishes every time its repeated. And now people just don't pay them any attention. So if and when the first nuke flies, its WW3. - Though this path was picked by both sides a long time ago, imho, it might take mass devastation before people stop acting like lunatics, and far right authoritarian fascists the world over. I don't know. Do you?

Can you answer that question without picking a side and saying this side need to back down,or that side needs to be defeated? If you can't here, with everything you've talked about and all the awareness you've gained, then it's likely nobody where you live can either, and war is largely inevitable in some form.

Edited Monday at 02:14 PM by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

Mother Moskva for the loose.