Russia - General Discussion.

[STURM]

Not one of the Kosovars I've met had blue eyes.

The few I've met had blue eyes and when I asked they said it was common. They also said it was common for Kosovars to have brown eyes.
Most Albanians I've met [admittedly not many] also have blue eyes.

Ive not noticed you commenting on how Afghans have blue eyes, or Palestineans (I've met more blue-eyed Palestineans than Kosovars), or Indians (ditto). Why Kosovars?

I've met quite a few Palestinians over the years and I've never met a single blue eyed one. As to why I mentioned Kosovars being blue eyed; the fact that Kosovo is in Europe as opposed to some far flung corner in Africa and the population is seen as European [which it is] played a part in shaping the international response and the events which led to intervention. As for Indians; as you're aware only a small percentage of the Indian population has blue eyes; confined mostly to the northern portions of India. I have not commented on the fact that some Afghans and Indians have blue eyes for the reason I had no need to; was not germane to the discussion/topic.

Serbia was a Russian ally a long time ago, when the Serbian monarchy was good friends with the Tsar, but that relationship was complicated

Pritt Buttar's "Collision Of Empires" and Robert Massie's "Dreadnought" does a good job explaining the Balkan situation pre WW1 and Russian attitudes towards Serbia.

Almost everything connected to the Balkans tends to be complicated and despite whatever has occurred in the past with regards to Tsarist RussIa/Soviet Union/post Cold War Russian relations with Yugoslavia/Serbia; there is strong attachment. The current state of Russian/Serbian relations: the Russian approach to the Bosnian Serbs and it's later policy over Kosovo all have to do with the fact that despite certain bumps along the way Serbia has been seen as long time ally; is a coreligionist and is an area which has traditionally been considered important to Russia.

In 1941 the USSR maintained its pact with Germany while Germany carved up Yugoslavia. Good, reliable, friend, eh?.

What would you have expected the Soviets to have done then? renounce the pact and declare war on Germany? the Soviets had gained Bessarabia and the Baltic states with Germany agreeing to it as part of the Non Aggression Pact and they had gained time; why would they have jeopardised all this? Letting Germany invade Yugoslavia was something the Soviets were unable to respond to and inaction was in line with Soviet policy of maintaining relations with Germany. Another issue is the when the Germans invaded; Yugoslavia was not ruled by a government which was friendly with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia was sacrificed on the alter of Great Power politics.

Great Britain declared war on Germany because Polish territorial sovereignty had been violated yet Britain [along with France] did absolutely nothing and was silent when the Soviets marched into eastern Poland because it wasn't in a position to do anything and because Germany was seven as a greater threat compared to the Soviet Union. We won't get into the part where Poland; for which Britain had declared war for; was later denied its freedom after WW2. Doesn't mean that Britain wasn't a "good, reliable" friend. Poland was sacrificed because it was in Britain's interests to do so.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

We should but we should also take advise strongly into consideration. Take Iraq and Afghanistan; in both cases various experts/academics/think tanks pointed out the complexities in both countries; the problems and invading/occupying power would face and the need to rebuild both countries but the political leadership was too consumed in hubris and short sightedness.

Few (if any) of said experts projected the reasonably quick defeat of Saddam's forces, nor did they project NATO forces staying in Afghanistan longer than the Soviets did. On the former point, it was generally believed that the US-British invasion force would be bogged down for years and have to spend months gaining control of Bagdhad without even getting to the peacekeeping stage. On the latter, I can't recall many people predicting a 20 year operation, more than twice the period the Soviets were there.

In my opinion, I think there is a tendancy amongst many people (even "experts") to believe that the militaries of authoritarian governments will perform as well as their paper abilities suggest, whether that's because propaganda makes people believe that all forces are loyal and highly motivated, or lack of transparency means that corruption remains hidden.

This is especially problematic when one of those countries lines up against a democracy, because their problems can get front-page news and are sometimes exaggerated. So at the start of 2022, there was plenty of information about Ukraine's shortcomings, with not so much concrete information about whether Russia was actually able to take the country.

For my own part, I won't pretend I predicted the exact situation we're in now thanks to inside-info about the poor level of Russia's military readiness. But I was sceptical that Russia's military conflicts of the last few decades - beating on weak countries like Georgia, 2014 Ukraine and Syrian rebels - was a sign it was going to crush Ukraine.

 

[seaspear]

My comment is to answer your comment on 'Russia can believe what they want'. Again it is Ukranian and Russian believes that matters. Much more importance than what your believe (as collective west public), or mine (as non collective west public) or anyone else in global communities. It is their blood that are going to spill, not everyone else (so far). Unless you want to join western voluenters in Ukraine line.

Yes number of casualties can shift public opinions, and including in Ukraine and Russia. Despite what many Western media feeding, Both portion of Ukranian and Russian have believe on their own cause in this war. Western media always shown how much Russian avoiding drafts, but not how much Ukranian avoiding drafts. Low morale and drafts avoidence happens in both sides. Both sides draftees has similar chances become cannon fodder.

After they are pulling back from Kharkiv, Russian and Luhantsk Militia defensive line in the Kharkiv-Luhantsk border still hold. Thus Big Potential after pulling back from West Bank, Russian lines in East Bank can also hold.

That's why I stated before this war has showm tendencies going to be long protected conflicts.

Your post seems to suggest that "Western Media" orchestrates the opinions of the public or governments against Russia unfairly please provide the proof of such an assertion ,
I would direct your attention to the United Nations resolution from earlier this year condemning Russia , this resolution was sponsored by ninety countries just five countries voted against it notably not countries with a free press
General Assembly resolution demands end to Russian offensive in Ukraine | | 1UN News

 

[Ananda]

would direct your attention to the United Nations resolution from earlier this year condemning Russia

Please not this again. That resolution does not matter. Indonesia are one of country that sign that, however due Indonesia hold down ties or downgrade any ties to Russia ? In fact most of those countries that 'condem' Russia (outside collective West) still maintain relationship with Russia as nothing happened.

Off course most of countries condemned Russian action. What Russian did is wrong and broke International rules. However most (outside collective west and allies), also going to sit in the fences, not going to take side in this West-Russian proxy war. Or do you not believe this's in the end already Western-Russian proxy war.

Off course Western media bias on this, as does Russian or China and their friends media. The rest just sit in the fences and watch.

Add:
This topic (international view on this war) already discussed long on Russia-West thread. If want to disputes this, I suggest put it on that thread, so not distracted this thread.

 

[seaspear]

Please not this again. That resolution does not matter. Indonesia are one of country that sign that, however due Indonesia hold down ties or downgrade any ties to Russia ? In fact most of those countries that 'condem' Russia (outside collective West) still maintain relationship with Russia as nothing happened.

Off course most of countries condemned Russian action. What Russian did is wrong and broke International rules. However most (outside collective west and allies), also going to sit in the fences, not going to take side in this West-Russian proxy war. Or do you not believe this's in the end already Western-Russian proxy war.

Off course Western media bias on this, as does Russian or China and their friends media. The rest just sit in the fences and watch.

Add:
This topic (international view on this war) already discussed long on Russia-West thread. If want to disputes this, I suggest put it on that thread, so not distracted this thread.

Its very easy to allege its because of Western media bias , but a bias allegation implies deliberate inaccuracies in reporting that you suggest its a collective Western media one would believe you are alleging an international conspiracy by Western media .PROVE IT !
Certainly not all of the member countries of the United Nations who voted against Russia imposed sanctions as this article outlines
45 countries sanctioned Russia and 29 countries are arming Ukraine — Castellum.AI
I note of course there are many countries who have not joined with the sanctions not out of approval of Russia's actions but for their own reasons
Which countries have decided not to sanction Russia? | Washington Examiner

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

On Saddam in 1991; opinions were mixed.

I was talking about the 2003 invasion. Yes, I'm sure in 1990-1 there were people who thought Iraq could be defeated because it had invaded another country that it was occupying, albeit it was a small one.

Whereas in 2003, most commentators seemed to be of the opinion that Iraqi resistance would be much stiffer and even if some people didn't like Saddam, a large majority would unify against a common enemy (the invading forces).

Understood and agreed. Just like how I'm sceptical when people assume that the U.S. or NATO will do well if faced with similar operational challenges. On paper they would but in reality? For the past few decades U.S. experience has been against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran [not a full blown war no doubt], Libya, Panama and Grenada.

NATO forces when deployed have had to adhere to a strict rulebook, even if it wasn't followed 100% of the time by 100% of forces, because their conflicts have involved a lot of ground-based peacekeeping (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq). See the differences between the caution taken after the fall of Saddam in 2003, compared to the 1990-1991 air campaign against Iraq where the only boots on the ground were special forces (until the very end of the conflict with the major armoured advance on Schwarzkopf's left flank).

This is the point, countries like Russia care far less about rules of engagement or design them so civilian casualties are just a "meh" consideration. So their performance should be seen through the lens of them not really having any restrictions placed on them. Whereas NATO states recently have been involved in a lot of conflicts where they essentially have one arm tied behind their back - which they won't in many scenarios (e.g. a direct war with China or Russia) because we're not going to be doing peacekeeping.

 

[Ananda]

but a bias allegation implies deliberate inaccuracies in reporting that you suggest its a collective Western media one would believe you are alleging an international conspiracy by Western media .PROVE IT !

Who say I have allegations on deliberate inaccuracies ?? Do you understand ENGLISH..Show where I say that. I say Western media is bias...but so does every media. Bias on choosing which information they are going to focus.

And who are you to demand PROVE IT !!, You come out from NOWHERE and accuse other on something you come out by your self..Act like GROWN UP..

 

[STURM]

Whereas in 2003, most commentators seemed to be of the opinion that Iraqi resistance would be much stiffer and even if some people didn't like Saddam, a large majority would unify against a common enemy (the invading forces).

By 2003 Saddam was much weaker. His army was smaller compared to 1991 [he couldn't recruit from up north and down south]; a lot of the kit that was destroyed in 1991 hadn't been replaced and internal divisions were deeper compared to 1991.

The irony is that for Saddam the greatest threat was the "heretic" and fevered Iranians [the reason he kept his nukes for as long as he did]; he only belatedly realised that his biggest threat came from an American President with his ever compliant English PM in tow; both convinced that God had placed the extremely heavy and taxing burden on their shoulders to reshape the Middle East.

NATO forces when deployed have had to adhere to a strict rulebook

I get your point and I agree but my point is that if we put aside all the mocking and schadenfreude about the Russians cocking up in a major way in the Ukraine and consider things objectively; there is nothing to.say that better trained and equipped NATO armies from democratic countries would perform any better. There is just no yardstick.

Whereas NATO states recently have been involved in a lot of conflicts

They have been in conflicts which had strict ROEs and politically driven limitations but ultimately these conflicts were against 3rd World or developing countries which had armed forces with neither the skills, experience, training or resources NATO had.

 

[John Fedup]

By 2003 Saddam was much weaker. His army was smaller compared to 1991 [he couldn't recruit from up north and down south]; a lot of the kit that was destroyed in 1991 hadn't been replaced and internal divisions were deeper compared to 1991.

The irony is that for Saddam the greatest threat was the "heretic" and fevered Iranians [the reason he kept his nukes for as long as he did];

Saddam never had nukes but he certainly wanted the Iranians to think his program was close to obtaining them.

 

[STURM]

Saddam never had nukes but he certainly wanted the Iranians to think his program was close to obtaining them.

He never reached the stage where he had functioning nukes but he came close and he had a fairly advanced chemical capability.

 

[seaspear]

Who say I have allegations on deliberate inaccuracies ?? Do you understand ENGLISH..Show where I say that. I say Western media is bias...but so does every media. Bias on choosing which information they are going to focus.

And who are you to demand PROVE IT !!, You come out from NOWHERE and accuse other on something you come out by your self..Act like GROWN UP..

Its your claim of media bias I have asked you to substantiate most members here are likely to view or read various national and international media on the situation in Ukraine ,many of those media organisations would have reporters in that country ,like members here if my posts have not provided evidence to cite I have been taken to task by moderators it's not unreasonable to ask the same of your post, personally I don't want to view media that reports with a prejudice or partial manner and view many for balance
This article suggests that a non-Western media has a very strong bias
China's Censorship, Propaganda Push Russian Version Of The War In Ukraine (rferl.org)

 

[Leftyhunter]

The Bellingham story was posted on here in October.

That's rubbish. There have been plenty of conflicts where foreign support didn't happen. The British were the victors of the Boer war and didn't require foreign support. The Boers got Mauser rifles from the Germans but that in itself didn't alter the outcome of the war. Then there as the English Civil War, the Norman invasion of England, Cromwell's actions in Ireland, the English defeat of the Spanish Armada, Chinggis Khans wars, and so on.

That's because the Boers unlike the American Rebels of the American Revolutionary War didn't receive foreign troops and naval support had they done so the wars outcome may of been different. As it was by 1910 South Africa achieved independence from the British although on very friendly terms . So I stand by with what I stated.
Leftyhunter

 

[swerve]

The few I've met had blue eyes and when I asked they said it was common. They also said it was common for Kosovars to have brown eyes.
Most Albanians I've met [admittedly not many] also have blue eyes.
...

Curious. Because I don't think I've met any. I'm sure there are some, but the nearest I've seen (which I've also seen in some Arabs & Amazigh, & quite a few Turks) is very light, & clear, brown. And I've been in Albanian-speaking areas of North Makedonia, not far from both Kosovo & Albania. I did see a young girl with striking blue eyes who could have been Albanian, in part of Skopje which was mostly Muslim, but she might have been a Serbo-Croat speaking Muslim, or a Turk.

One of the local pubs where I live is owned by an Albanian - brown-eyed. And the first time I drank with Kosovars was 1981, on a train from Yugoslavia to Istanbul. All brown-eyed.

 

[John Fedup]

He never reached the stage where he had functioning nukes but he came close and he had a fairly advanced chemical capability.

OT…..I haven’t really researched how close he came. Neo Cons in Washington fooled many on that IMO. As for chemical weapons, perhaps an option against an opponent that can’t retaliate,

 

[Ananda]

You know what Russian soldiers would rather not fight ? These guys.
Leftyhunter

There's also videos from Pro Russian channel that shows Ukrainian run away from their trenches from Russian attacks. It's prove Ukrainian not want to fight ?

your claim of media bias I have asked you to substantiate most members here are likely to view or read various national and international media on the situation in Ukraine ,many of those media organisations

You are accusing me on putting Western media is doing 'deliberate inaccuracies' which I never put that on my posts. So don't try to say something else. Deliberate inaccuracies is lying and that's different thing with bias.

I also put in my posts that all media is bias, and you put something from Western sources claiming non western media biases. What's that prove on anything ? Western media bias more likely also going to be claim by non collective west sources.

Western Media’s Shock and Bias Ukraine-Russia Coverage | NewsClick

Ignoring war events, western media is highlighting individual and family suffering in Ukraine to trigger anti-Russia feelings in the guise of anti-war sentiment.

www.newsclick.in

That's from Indian sources (just one example), or are you going to say it's 'deliberate inaccuracies' because it is not from western sources ? This just shown why most non collective west tend to sit on fences. Definitely not going to used collective west media (especially their mainstream media) as point of references on this war. Because both sides media are biases on this war.

. I have a difficult time believing that the majority of RU citizens somehow feel threatened by UKR.

This's why I said on media biases from both sides in this war. As West and Ukrainian media and sources shown Russian avoiding drafts, so does Russia-China media and channels shown Ukrainian mens (not just women and children) running away to Russian and Belarusian border (not just to West) to avoid drafts.

Those media reports from both sides does not prove anything that big portion on Ukranian and Russian population want to fight. There's also report from Pro Russian channels on Ukrainian defections low morale. Is that prove anything that big defections and big morale problems happen in Ukranian rank ?

That's why I don't want to put anything on Western-Ukranian sources videos or links as prove of Russian morale and defections problems. As other sides also showing similar problem thing on Ukrainian sides. Both media's basically just showing biases, thus can not be call reliable sources on this morale conditions on each sides.

Again this's why especially from non collective west publics, don't see both sides media as reliable point of proves of anything in this war yet. Most just sitting in fences and wait the 'real' situation progressing in this war.

What's the fact is at this moment is what happens on the lines in the war. Russian being push back from their gains and Ukrainian doing better then expected (no doubt about that). However Russian now more or less building defensive lines on whatever area in Southeast Ukraine they are still holding, while Ukrainian still have problem to breach new Russian defensive lines.

This talk on Russian or Ukrainian low morale and public support are only 'guessing' base on biases of each sides media.

 

[Big Slick]

The best way to prevent an adversary from attack you is to have him fight someone else and suffer heavy losses. Or the best defense is a good offense. It's cheaper by far to destroy Russian military personnel and their equipment by supporting a proxy then for the US or another Western country fight Russia.
Russia did the same to the US and it's allies in Korea and Vietnam so now it's the Wests time to return the favor.
Leftyhunter

I understand the proxy concept, I just don’t see it’s necessity in this situation. The US was not attacked by Russia. No US ally was attacked by Russia. The US does not have to fight this proxy war. The fallout and risks to the US can not be fully known at this time but could be substantial.

 

[seaspear]

There's also videos from Pro Russian channel that shows Ukrainian run away from their trenches from Russian attacks. It's prove Ukrainian not want to fight ?



You are accusing me on putting Western media is doing 'deliberate inaccuracies' which I never put that on my posts. So don't try to say something else. Deliberate inaccuracies is lying and that's different thing with bias.

I also put in my posts that all media is bias, and you put something from Western sources claiming non western media biases. What's that prove on anything ? Western media bias more likely also going to be claim by non collective west sources.

Western Media’s Shock and Bias Ukraine-Russia Coverage | NewsClick

Ignoring war events, western media is highlighting individual and family suffering in Ukraine to trigger anti-Russia feelings in the guise of anti-war sentiment.

www.newsclick.in

That's from Indian sources (just one example), or are you going to say it's 'deliberate inaccuracies' because it is not from western sources ? This just shown why most non collective west tend to sit on fences. Definitely not going to used collective west media (especially their mainstream media) as point of references on this war. Because both sides media are biases on this war.



This's why I said on media biases from both sides in this war. As West and Ukrainian media and sources shown Russian avoiding drafts, so does Russia-China media and channels shown Ukrainian mens (not just women and children) running away to Russian and Belarusian border (not just to West) to avoid drafts.

Those media reports from both sides does not prove anything that big portion on Ukranian and Russian population want to fight. There's also report from Pro Russian channels on Ukrainian defections low morale. Is that prove anything that big defections and big morale problems happen in Ukranian rank ?

That's why I don't want to put anything on Western-Ukranian sources videos or links as prove of Russian morale and defections problems. As other sides also showing similar problem thing on Ukrainian sides. Both media's basically just showing biases, thus can not be call reliable sources on this morale conditions on each sides.

Again this's why especially from non collective west publics, don't see both sides media as reliable point of proves of anything in this war yet. Most just sitting in fences and wait the 'real' situation progressing in this war.

What's the fact is at this moment is what happens on the lines in the war. Russian being push back from their gains and Ukrainian doing better then expected (no doubt about that). However Russian now more or less building defensive lines on whatever area in Southeast Ukraine they are still holding, while Ukrainian still have problem to breach new Russian defensive lines.

This talk on Russian or Ukrainian low morale and public support are only 'guessing' base on biases of each sides media.

Has this professor of sociology from India ever been to Ukraine ? This person you cite states it was Ukraine's decision to join N.A.T.O triggered this conflict Ukraine declared it was a priority to join N.A.T.O in 2014 after Russia forcefully annexed Crimea ,Ukraine as a sovereign country should be allowed to apply to join such an organisation as per Finland and Sweden , this sociology professor goes on to suggest that the war is being fueled by western countries arming Ukraine ,which only significantly happened after Russia invaded ,certainly Russia has also called for these arm shipment to cease to shorten the war, in regards of media guessing in their reporting we often post from this body ,is it inaccurate in its summary from its intelligence gathering ?
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, November 12 | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

 

[Ananda]

this professor of sociology from India ever been to Ukraine ?

Has mosts pundits that being sources by Western Media has been to Ukraine, or more precise has been to Ukraine war ground ?

Again this is shown biases to every media, so don't change subject. I put this Indian pundits as one of example. Predictable you are not going to agree on anyone who does not agree with your precious western sources and agenda.

 

[seaspear]

Who is going to pay the bill for 2-3 million Ukrainian troops to be trained and outfitted for 2-3 years? Who is going to keep Ukraine government solvent and subsidize it’s failing economy? Will Europe suffer economic turmoil and energy interruptions for 2-3 years? I think this is an unrealistic level of support.

What if it makes China reconsider actions towards Taiwan or should that be ignored ?

 

[seaspear]

Has mosts pundits that being sources by Western Media has been to Ukraine, or more precise has been to Ukraine war ground ?

Again this is shown biases to every media, so don't change subject. I put this Indian pundits as one of example. Predictable you are not going to agree on anyone who does not agree with your precious western sources and agenda.

I believe the Western media you refer to have plenty of pundits in Ukraine
Foreign journalists in Ukraine | UACRISIS.ORG
28 journalists deceased in Ukraine due to russian invasion – IMI | Institute of Mass Information