The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

rsemmes

Active Member
Once again, your formatting is deficient. You need to start with the request to explain the term "death warrant". (Is English your native language ?)
That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...

So, are you actually reading this forum? Do you remember what you posted? I know it is difficult to see it in the news. But yes, what dam could that be that we are talking about, here, now...
Feanor was able to see it but, of course, if you don't want to see... (Actually, he got a few more for you.)

"UKR is trying to outlast RU and/or Putin."
If Zelenski is trying to outlast... He is delusional.
"What minerals has the US taken from UKR ?!
The great contract for Ukraine that Trump got from Zelenski.
"This war has brought so many surprises..."
I disagree.
"Your pretend care..."
Again, do you read this forum? I posted that I do not care. (Or that I care as much as we care about those boats sunk in the Caribbean.)
"Facts ? Iraq ? Iran ?"
Again, do you read this forum? You provided the context: "Just like we helped Nationalist China in 1941, South Korea in 1950, Britain in 1940, western Europe in the cold war, etc etc." 'Pick and choose' History?
"Simply put, RU is taking hits too."
The bigger country is getting (a lot less) hits... Is that a conclusion or wishful thinking?
"Putin using nuclear weapons would mean his own death."
Do you know if Trump is going to sign his own "death warrant" ('no winners' in your own words) over Ukraine? Do you know if that is the only option Putin has?

I have another language for you: Ad hominen.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...

So, are you actually reading this forum? Do you remember what you posted? I know it is difficult to see it in the news. But yes, what dam could that be that we are talking about, here, now...
Feanor was able to see it but, of course, if you don't want to see... (Actually, he got a few more for you.)

"UKR is trying to outlast RU and/or Putin."
If Zelenski is trying to outlast... He is delusional.
"What minerals has the US taken from UKR ?!
The great contract for Ukraine that Trump got from Zelenski.
"This war has brought so many surprises..."
I disagree.
"Your pretend care..."
Again, do you read this forum? I posted that I do not care. (Or that I care as much as we care about those boats sunk in the Caribbean.)
"Facts ? Iraq ? Iran ?"
Again, do you read this forum? You provided the context: "Just like we helped Nationalist China in 1941, South Korea in 1950, Britain in 1940, western Europe in the cold war, etc etc." 'Pick and choose' History?
"Simply put, RU is taking hits too."
The bigger country is getting (a lot less) hits... Is that a conclusion or wishful thinking?
"Putin using nuclear weapons would mean his own death."
Do you know if Trump is going to sign his own "death warrant" ('no winners' in your own words) over Ukraine? Do you know if that is the only option Putin has?

I have another language for you: Ad hominen.
Homo homini lupus est. Sorry I couldn't resist.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
So rsemmes what outcome do you want for this conflict.

Regards S
Want? Completely irrelevant.

I do not care. I don't think we're going to start WW3 for this conflict so, I don't care.
How many conflicts around there right now? I (we?) don't care.
Do I want any specific outcome? Never even thought about it. I thinks it's better if it ends now, or after Robotine or at Istanbul.
I don't think it will end with an Ukrainian collapse, just before that. My heart is not in this conflict, I don't "want" anything. As I posted before, this conflict is just another footnote.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Want? Completely irrelevant.

I do not care. I don't think we're going to start WW3 for this conflict so, I don't care.
How many conflicts around there right now? I (we?) don't care.
Do I want any specific outcome? Never even thought about it. I thinks it's better if it ends now, or after Robotine or at Istanbul.
I don't think it will end with an Ukrainian collapse, just before that. My heart is not in this conflict, I don't "want" anything. As I posted before, this conflict is just another footnote.
I’m not sure what I can unpack from your response.
You certainly have a lot to say about this conflict.
While you may dismiss it as just another footnote, you do appear to have some passion engaging with others on this subject.

I’m a bit confused

Cheers S
 

rsemmes

Active Member
I’m not sure what I can unpack from your response.
You certainly have a lot to say about this conflict.
While you may dismiss it as just another footnote, you do appear to have some passion engaging with others on this subject.
I’m a bit confused
Cheers S
I wouldn't use the word "passion". I am interested in the 1809 campaign, neither in the outcome of the Austrian Empire nor in the life of the French soldiers; probably about their logistics.
Still confused?
 
Last edited:

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
An interesting development in international war crimes law that i suspect Russia will not like.
A Russian officer who is a pow has been charged with war crimes and transfered to be tried outside of Ukraine.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
It's been used in English probably for as long as there's been English, & the most quoted versions are somewhat archaic: "There's none so blind as he who will not see" (16th century, I think) & "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

"Will not see" in this usage means more or less "refuses to see", or "avoids seeing".
 
That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...
To be fair, reading your posts sometimes does feels like chatting with an old, frustrated friend at 3 a.m. who’s maybe a drink past coherence. Said with full affection, mind you!
And absolutely not saying your points aren’t solid, they might be brilliant, it’s just that following them sometimes requires quite a bit of effort.

Can’t really add much to the linguistic discussion, it’s not my native language, neither.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Based on its historical experience, Ukraine has ample reason to question both Russia’s adherence to treaties and the West’s resolve in upholding security guarantees.
That's the thing, if western security guarantees can't be counted upon, then what even is the end game?

It’d be an interesting question whether the situation would look different today had Western military aid been delivered earlier and in a more decisive manner. The incremental, hesitant approach always seemed to blunt its potential impact.
Certainly more aid would have helped. We can see the impact western aid has on the battlefield.

Do we have a good understanding by now if this was a genuine offer, rather than a maneuver aimed at shaping perceptions or buying time?
I think the Istanbul accords were a genuine offer. I don't think the initial invasion was about conquering territory. It became that when Russia shifted to a long war. Even so I don't think Russia intends to conquer all of Ukraine. That would create a huge problem for Russia, absorbing populations like Kiev, L'vov, etc. I think Russia can relatively easily (relative to taking the rest Ukraine) absorb places like Kharkov, or Kherson. Though I suspect Zaporozhye would present challenges. I do think Russia wants a way out where they can keep what they've conquered, and impose a forced neutrality on Ukraine. But to be fair, this is my interpretation.

Which is why the information front, propaganda, morale, perceptionhas become such a key part of this war.
Agreed.

What is that assessment based on? Are there specific sources or data comparing the two sides’ conduct?
I don't know of a good impartial systematic comparison. This is the impression I've gotten from following this conflict since the events of '14. In my opinion the Ukrainian military has been more willing to commit heinous acts then Russia's forces or the rebels. That having been said the comparison is a complex one. Russia certainly does more damage to Ukrainian civilians, because Russia carries out far more strikes. But Ukraine seems to be more willing to deliver strikes either against civilian targets or with near complete disregard for civilians. Case in point, bombarding Belgorod in the middle of a busy day with MLRS strikes that didn't seem to be aimed at anything in particular. A Russian Kh-101 that misses or gets downed can do far more damage then a Uragan rocket. But it typically was aimed at either military or dual use targets. Meanwhile Ukraine has been cheerfully striking public transportation in the town of Gorlovka with drones, even though the population is ostensibly Ukraine's own people. And if you look at Ukrainian service members' social media you often find them talking about locals in the east as pro-Russian sympathizers. I suspect there's a certain amount of "othering" within Ukraine's force-wielding structures of Russian civilians, and of Ukrainian citizens in the east that may be (not are, may be) more pro-Russian inclined. In the end Russia may be killing more civilians then Ukraine but Ukraine is more willing to kill civilians deliberately or indiscriminantely. Again this the impression I've carried away from following this war.

None of this excuses Russian war crimes, which are real and have been committed fairly brazenly in many cases.

Last thought, the units used by both sides, especially earlier into the war, were very inconsistent. From the Russian side the war started with militarized police elements from the Troops of the Interior, National Guard units, actualy army units, rebel formations, soon joined by irregulars (like the Cossack units) and various mercenary elements. In Russia specifically the police is notoriously corrupt and police brutality is well known phenomena. And we saw militarized police elements involved in war crimes early in the war. So the behavior can also vary strongly from unit to unit. The same can be said for Ukraine that entered the war with a mix of regular army, territorial defense brigades, National Guard, and separate units specifically associated with right-wing extremists (Azov, Kraken, Aydar etc.). The behavior also varies by unit. The story of Tornado btln is indicative there.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
It's been used in English probably for as long as there's been English, & the most quoted versions are somewhat archaic: "There's none so blind as he who will not see" (16th century, I think) & "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

"Will not see" in this usage means more or less "refuses to see", or "avoids seeing".
Thanks. now I know there is.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
To be fair, reading your posts sometimes does feels like chatting with an old, frustrated friend at 3 a.m. who’s maybe a drink past coherence. Said with full affection, mind you!
And absolutely not saying your points aren’t solid, they might be brilliant, it’s just that following them sometimes requires quite a bit of effort.

Can’t really add much to the linguistic discussion, it’s not my native language, neither.
I should use more words,I've been told before. (Not only at 3 in the morning.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
Just a few fragments.

"One Ukrainian tank platoon observed by the author had been operating four captured Russian tanks for over a year, and while they conceded that they would be hit between two and 12 times per operation, the vehicles were still in good condition, even if their armour had to be regularly replaced."
-That is far from the often repeated story of one tank (always Russian) getting one drone and blowing up in flames.
"Ukrainians generally perceive Western tanks as overly heavy and hard to repair. Crews may appreciate their survivability, but commanders find their availability diminishes quickly. Battle damage to armour is considered an inevitable consequence of its employment. As a result, the speed at which it can be recovered and repaired is critical to maintaining the tempo of operations."
-They never were silver bullets, nor victory.
The optimised Ukrainian section comprises seven soldiers, divided into two fireteams of three plus the section commander. When holding a position, a section will usually deploy one fireteam to cover enemy forces, supported by the section commander, and deploy the other fireteam to cover the air. When moving, the section divides, with two soldiers from each fireteam moving and firing to cover the enemy, and the third covering the air.
-That looks familiar, to me. One possible way to counter a threat. The only seven men, for two different missions, feels like a handicap, but you work with what you have.

Edit:
-About surprise...
"A pertinent example is how Ukrainian forces routinely deploy mines on anticipated axes of attack as the enemy is assembling."
-So, if one side can deny enemy's ISR (superabundance of assets) we will have an armoured penetration and business as usual.
"For example, engineering equipment which is critical to breaching risks being damaged or destroyed before it even approaches the line of contact.
-Something that already happened in the Golan Heights in 1973 by direct fire.
"In addition, because non-line of sight weapons are ubiquitous"
-Since 1914...
"The result is that manoeuvre forces outstrip the rate at which they can be supplied"
-Well, not really, that depends on the volume of fire and forces available to each side.
"Russian soldiers usually infiltrate in groups of two to five"
-Not the 1-2 mentioned sometimes.
...

I don't think I can call that report "Good".
 
Last edited:

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
Ukraine avoided this fate when they defeated Russia's initial invasion. They have terms now that would in principle allow them to remain independent and not be a Russian puppet state.
What precise terms has RU offered ? We have some idea of what was offered in 2022, but what now ? Is "UKR demilitarization" off the table ? here is what I can find:


"
On 15 May, Russian and Ukrainian delegations held direct talks in Istanbul for the first time since early 2022.[356] On the meetings which continued 2 June delegations exchanged their largely incompatible negotiation positions and only agreed on humanitarian issues such as exchange of prisoners and bodies. Vladimir Medinsky was leading a Russian delegation to a negotiation meeting with Ukraine in Istanbul. He demanded that Ukraine should allow Russia to keep the Ukrainian regions that were occupied by Russia, and also to give up more land. He stated that Russia was prepared to fight the war for as many years as was necessary to achieve the Russian goals, and referred to the 18th century Russo-Swedish War, saying that it lasted for 21 years.[357] On 3 June Dmitry Medvedev commented that the negotiations are "not for striking a compromise peace on someone else's delusional terms but for ensuring our swift victory and the complete destruction of the neo-Nazi regime".[358]

As a condition of peace, Russia called on Ukraine to give up four partially occupied Ukrainian regions that Russia had annexed but not conquered: a territorial concession that Ukraine has repeatedly rejected. Russia further demanded that Ukraine must accept strict limitations on its armed forces, not be part of any military alliance, not receive any Western military aid, outlaw "nationalist parties and organizations", outlaw "Nazi propaganda", grant Russian the status of an official language, guarantee the rights of the Russian-speaking population, restore full diplomatic and economic ties with Russia, that neither side would demand any reparations, and that all Western sanctions against Russia be lifted.[359][360] Putin rejected calls for an unconditional ceasefire and escalated attacks on Ukraine.[361]
"

Seems to me to be pretty much the same as 2022.

Maybe once negotiations start in earnest, something in the details will prevent that, but what we have now is a deal that makes Ukraine neutral and demilitarized. Nothing about political subservience to Russia.
Demilitarization = subservience. The comparison to Czech.1938 cannot be overstated.


I'm reasonably confident he's pointing at the hypocrisy of crying about Russia blowing up a dam but mostly keeping quiet about Ukraine blowing up the Belgorod dam. Ukraine double-taps a civilian ambulance in Donetsk, and there's no outrage, but Russia hits one in Kherson and they're a terrorist state. This seems to be the main point he's making. Ukraine's behavior isn't substantively better than Russia's. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's substantively worse, minus the fact of the invasion itself.
Well that is a fair point. The damaged Belgorod dam lowered water levels by 1 foot in the reservoir, causing some flooding.


The Kakhovka dam was completely destroyed, resulting in a far greater catastrophe with ~100 killed or missing.

I suppose if ones biggest complaint about this war is that western media is downplaying the effect of the Belgorod dam, then you can have that point. However, the magnitude and effects of the dam strikes are far different.

UKR is not completely innocent here when it comes to strikes on infrastructure and civilian targets. RU, however makes it a policy.
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...
Thats a lot of verbage to say "no" (as in "English is not my native language").

The purpose of my question is that so I can avoid idiom to enable you to actually participate in a meaningful manner.

Your use of a "stream of consciousness-no-context" style is not beneficial to me, you, or the other reader. Context is key.

So, are you actually reading this forum? Do you remember what you posted? I know it is difficult to see it in the news. But yes, what dam could that be that we are talking about, here, now...
Feanor was able to see it but, of course, if you don't want to see... (Actually, he got a few more for you.)
No, Feanor was able to concisely state that the disconnect was on my part. You were unable to do so.

Allow me to format your post properly. Such a chore. V= viking, R = rsemmes

V: "UKR is trying to outlast RU and/or Putin."
R: If Zelenski is trying to outlast... He is delusional.
Seems to be working so far. RU has a navy, a far larger air force, a far larger budget, a far larger pool of manpower, and (had) a large stock of cold war material..... and RU hasnt been able to accomplish its goals.

Will it work forever ? Hard to tell.

The real delusional person is Putin. 3.5 years into this shit-show of military, economic and political incompetence, RU still has not achieved its goals.

V:"What minerals has the US taken from UKR ?!
R: The great contract for Ukraine that Trump got from Zelenski.
So....you didnt read.... I asked precisely: "What minerals has the US taken from UKR"

The answer of course - is nothing.

V: "This war has brought so many surprises..."
R: I disagree.
You......havnt been surprised ? You saw in advance as such events as:

- UKR taking back half of what RU initially had taken
- sinking of the Moskva and chasing the RU Black sea fleet back into port
- neutering the ability of the RU airforce to openly operate over UKR
- massive increase of drone warfare, and its evolutions, to the point of seeing WW1 tactics
- the inability of RU to protects is economic centers (refining)
- two new additions to NATO

Well, maybe since you are so smart, you can tell us some winning lottery numbers.

V: "Your pretend care..."
R: Again, do you read this forum? I posted that I do not care. (Or that I care as much as we care about those boats sunk in the Caribbean.)
Really ? One of your talking points has been about the effect on the UKR people.

V: "Facts ? Iraq ? Iran ?"
R: Again, do you read this forum? You provided the context: "Just like we helped Nationalist China in 1941, South Korea in 1950, Britain in 1940, western Europe in the cold war, etc etc." 'Pick and choose' History?
"No context".

V: "Simply put, RU is taking hits too."
R: The bigger country is getting (a lot less) hits... Is that a conclusion or wishful thinking?
Bigger, but points of economic sensitivity. If UKR can keep hitting these centers, what can RU do ?

V:"Putin using nuclear weapons would mean his own death."
R: Do you know if Trump is going to sign his own "death warrant" ('no winners' in your own words) over Ukraine? Do you know if that is the only option Putin has?
The political, military and economic blowback from using nukes is a death sentence. It doesnt automatically mean a global nuke war.

I have another language for you: Ad hominen.
I have another suggestion. Try adding context and formatting.
 
Last edited:

rsemmes

Active Member
Thats a lot of verbage to say "no" (as in "English is not my native language").

The purpose of my question is that so I can avoid idiom to enable you to actually participate in a meaningful manner.

Your use of a "stream of consciousness-no-context" style is not beneficial to me, you, or the other reader. Context is key.
a/ I didn't want to say "no".
b/ You have been able to see "no".

- UKR taking back half of what RU initially had taken
- sinking of the Moskva and chasing the RU Black sea fleet back into port
- neutering the ability of the RU airforce to openly operate over UKR
- massive increase of drone warfare, and its evolutions, to the point of seeing WW1 tactics
- the inability of RU to protects is economic centers (refining)
- two new additions to NATO
Ukraine didn't "take it back", Russia left. The front moving in a war!
Sinking ships in a war! (Falklands?)
Explain that to Israel in 1973.
"Massive". On the other hand... Massive use of munitions in a war!
Economic centres of a nation at war being hit... Ever?
NATO was expanding.

I have another suggestion. Try adding context and formatting.
"There's none so blind as he who will not see"
 
Top