poesel
-
Posts
4,311 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by poesel
-
-
2 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:
Two situations where people had good reasons for insurgencies (if there are any good reasons), but nothing happened, were Germany and Japan right after the end of WW2.
Both countries had, until defeated, completely different (political and social, mainly) beliefs compared to the conquering and occupying nations (Ehm, just the Western Allies, because Russia.., well, Russia just being Russian.)
So that could be a reason for an insurgency, because there was a (kind of) repression from the Allied occupants. (Warning: this is not my personal opinion, I describe what lots of Germans and Japanese might have felt in 1945.) Some political views were suddenly FORBIDDEN, and some people were hunted down and punished for things that were totally acceptable in their countries until the end of the war.
Medical experiments, massive exploitation of slave-labourers, killing Jews and Russian POW's and Chinese civilians and Allied POW's, killng innocent hostages, looting occupied countries, and so on and so forth. Suddenly the people who were engaged in those things, weren't allowed to do that no more. So those people, and were talking about not just hundreds, but at least hundreds of thousands, were "forced" to live differently, which also can be a reason for wanting to participate in, or instigate, an insurgency/rebellion.
Besides that a huge percentage of all people in Germany and Japan had experienced personal loss. Either by being wounded, familymembers killed or wounded or missing, friends and neighbours and colleagues killed, or having their houses and shops and factories being destroyed or through evacuations and/or ending up homeless. And those who didn't experience a personal loss, saw their countries being humiliated and being bombed to smithereens.
Which, considering the fact that we humans always feel our own suffering much more than that of others and the tendency to ignore what we (Germany and Japan in this case) did to others, can create resentment and a lust for revenge.
So why was there no big insurgency then? Why practically no attacks on the occupiers?
Well, it seems to me that there are two ways to prevent an insurgency.
1. Utter and total repression.
Immediate and murderous hunting down of every possible bit of revolt or resistance. Like Stalin did. Kill everyone you suspect. As a result most people won't even think about protesting or speaking up, just out of fear and self-preservation.
2. Being much better than what was.
The Western Allies brought, even for fanatical nationalists, better circumstances on nearly all parts of life for the Germans and Japanese. Freedom of thought and speech and what to read, freedom of travel and movement, freedom to choose your occupation, freedom of religion, entrepeneurial freedom, and much more.
But there was something else; which seems a little weird: people were not being persecuted for wrong-doings except the worst. In stead of shooting all Germans (like I would have done if I was Eisenhower when he discovered what the Germans really did during WW2), stunning amounts of "wrong-doers" got away with sometimes stunning crimes. And even some of those who were convicted, had their sentences absurdly reduced, a few years later.
But unbelievably so, that - for most people despicable - "forgiveness behaviour" created better circumstances in the long run. It helped to create a better, much less belligerent, Germany and Japan. (Eh, until today al least
.)
Somehow accepting that people do bad/stupid things, and try to cope with that, works better than revenge and retalliation. Not always and not perfectly, but it works.
So as I see it: when (NOT IF) Ukraine gets Crimea (and the rest) back, there's just two ways to prevent an insurgency.
Be extremely ruthless, or be forgiving.
Very well put.
One thing to add: one reason why Germany and Japan were treated so well by the allies was that they were needed vs Russia and/or China. Without that, I guess the willingness to forgive would have been a bit less.
The willingness of Ukraine to forgive Russia or Russians will pay out in good PR in the West, which translates to money or things like EU membership.
Ukraine has managed to stay the 'good guy' in a horrible war. When the war ends, it needs to stay that for its own future.
That will be a very hard thing to do - not to pay back what the bastards have done to you. But the West is not in this war, we are only observing. And the West will judge Ukraine by its own standards, which are not adjusted by having been into that war.Winning the war is only halfway to peace.
-
10 minutes ago, billbindc said:
It could go either way and we don't know definitively yet but elements in the German government are clearly pushing the idea that the Russians didn't stop an attack by amateurs with their professionals on site and didn't do the pig obvious thing (go public) that would have stopped the attack in its tracks. Those are extraordinary claims that will require extraordinary proofs...
I really shouldn't link to articles nobody can read...
This article is from a German newspaper and TV station, not the government. The government actually says nothing about this. Nil, zip, nada. Theres probably currently no interest in finding out.
Btw, the tip came from the Dutch secret service. It was relayed to the US and Germany. The tip stated that the attack would happen during that NATO maneuvre in the Baltics. When that tip reached the German government that date had already passed and it was thus discarded as false.
-
9 minutes ago, billbindc said:
The idea that the Russians were attempt to covertly stop a Ukrainian attack on Nordstream is...to put it mildly...absurd. All they would have had to do is make it public and the Ukrainian government would have perforce put an end to it.
There were some Russians ships with turned off transponders in that region just prior to the explosions. They could have placed the explosives or try to remove them. We don't know.
Pro (Russia is the culprit): they tried to evade the fines for not delivering gas by force majeure
Contra: why would they destroy a big source of income?
9 minutes ago, billbindc said:Also, that Russia is somehow inherently incapable of complex covert operations is...well, let's just say that they've been doing them against the Germans successfully for a long time so perhaps the BND and friends aren't the best judges of that capability.
Yes, but I don't mean they couldn't do it. I meant that they couldn't do it without being caught afterwards. Their track record hasn't been that good lately.
7 minutes ago, dan/california said:Indeed, this documentary appears to have been one of those successful operations.
Quite the contrary. The documentary displays the facts as far as they are known to the public and refrains from presenting a conclusion. But it does list the options. That includes those that most of us probably dislike.
-
SPIEGEL has a long article about the destruction of Nord Stream (paywalled, German):
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-anschlag-in-der-ostsee-die-spuren-fuehren-in-eine-richtung-in-die-ukraine-a-befcbfbb-b1cd-4912-aeaa-56bef4dd8047They did it together with German TV ZDF who made a documentary (I'm not sure if this is accessible from abroad):
https://www.zdf.de/politik/frontal/doku-fall-nord-stream-spurensuche-ostsee-andromeda-gas-pipeline-explosion-russland-sabotage-ukraine-krieg-100.htmlTL;DR:
- it was done with a small sail boat with 6-man crew, specialists have confirmed that to be feasible
- Russian activities at the time & place likely were attempted countermeasures
- all trails lead to Ukraine & Ukrainians
- Zelensky's involvement highly unlikely, but maybe lower rank, nothing proven
- could be Russian false flag - biggest counterargument is that they didn't botch that highly complicated mission
- German government is unusually tight-lipped & has no real interest in solving the case (now or maybe never)
-
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yet West Germany never formally (as far as I know) accepted the existence of the DDR nor did it ever give assurances to NATO that it would never, ever, under any circumstances seek to reunite with territories lost to it through war.
I agree with you on the point, but not on the details.
We mutually recognized each other in 1972 (BRD & DDR).
We did not give assurances to NATO, but between 1970-73 in several contracts to the SU, Poland, DDR, the Allies & Czechoslovakia. This included special legalese to allow a possible reunification with the DDR.
-
14 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:
Time to go to IKEA to pick up some Swedish meatballs, and re-watch some Dolph Lundgren movies.
I'm a great fan of IKEA and Swedish meatballs (köttbullar), but I can not recommend köttbullar from IKEA. Totally bland and without taste. No match for those you get in Sweden.
11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:The gist is that Ukraine pause the war, not freeze it. It then pursues rebuilding its country and becoming a part of NATO. Since the territory under Ukraine's control is not "disputed", then membership should be allowed. Similar to West Germany becoming a NATO member despite half the country being part of the DDR or dissolved. A Russian attack into Ukrainian government controlled land would be Article 4 and 5 material.
I'm nitpicking here. When Germany entered NATO, East- and West-Germany were already two distinct states. So that is not a good comparison.
After the reunification, the eastern part of Germany only became NATO territory after the Russians left. That maybe a model.But I doubt that will ever happen because of economic reasons. Pausing the war and 'building it up' may work for the military, but not for the civilian infrastructure. That is expensive to repair and easy to destroy. After unpausing, Ukraine would have to build that AGAIN.
-
5 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Russian counter-battery radar Zoopark-M1 was hit by HIMARS as claimed, but as for me it's more similar to Excaliburs. Target was tracked by UKR "Shark" drone, having very cool zoom. Location - Novopetrykivka village, Donetsk oblast. About 15 km SE from Urozhaine.
Maybe a bit late to ask, but why do you bold some parts of location names, like the 'o' & 'i' in Novopetrykivka? Thanks.
-
One reason not to drop Kerch Bridge maybe that it makes retreating easier. Having a way out lessens the resolve of the defenders. IIRC that's from Sun-Tzu, so nothing new.
Actually, the Russians should drop that bridge as soon as push comes to shove in Crimea.
-
Pictures of Tor-M1 having been hit by a M30A1 round (sorry for the format).
-
10 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Thanks for the explanation.
Do you think that Ukraine is really trying to reduce corruption in earnest?
During war, corruption usually flourishes because so many things are running out of normal bounds. This makes it twice as difficult to fight. OTOH, the government can be a bit more drastic with the punishments. -
-
53 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
All this talks about "we will give you Taurus, but will pach it in order you do not fire on Russia" gives a question "either bridge considered as Russian territory or not?"
No - as far as Germany and all other UN countries (except for the usual suspects) is concerned, it is not Russian territory. It was built illegally without the consent of Ukraine.
Btw, this 'patch' is highly criticized here. It is seen as either a delaying action or as an insult to Ukraine, or both. The pressure is getting higher to deliver Taurus now and not draw it out like with the Leopards.
-
That's the spirit.
-
13 minutes ago, kevinkin said:
This whole thing is curious too:
Not a good story even if it's just a sad part of war. It is usually a good idea to get out ahead of emerging issues even if they are small in the scheme of things. So let's chalk this and Kupyansk up to that. If all this is simple western style transparency, kuddos.
Sorry, this is not directed at you specifically, but could we get a short summary, what the article is about?
People sometimes just post a link without comment. Sometimes you can deduct the content from the URL, most of the time not. This leaves the reader with the decision to click on that link and thus find out if interesting or not.
So a little piece of description would be helpful for everyone. Thanks.
-
On 8/6/2023 at 2:30 AM, cesmonkey said:
Update to this: pundit said that Germany will drag her feet as long as the US won't supply ATACMS. Basically the same as with the Leopards - no cats without Abrams (at least promised at the time).
I hope that this time the necessary preparations have already been done and Taurus could be delivered ASAP when and if the decision will be made.
Btw. I retract my notion about the usefulness of the missile. Its abilities seem to be on par with SS/SCALP.
-
That anti-drone 'net' used to be a tent!
How long until we see two-stage munitions for drones? Not long, I guess.
-
8 hours ago, Fenris said:
Not nice - Niger locals (paid shills?) waving "Wagner+Russia=Freedom" sign
These guys got 30-50 Euros each.
I'm starting to wonder if it weren't a good thing if the West would just do the same. Openly, of course - just to show the public that this is possible.
-
10 hours ago, cesmonkey said:
Taurus has no stealth ability (Storm Shadow / SCALP have) and is sub-sonic. That means its survivability would be very low in this war.
SS & SCALP are built on the same technology, while Taurus is different. An extra adapter to the Su-24 would have to be developed (I guess).
As much as I wish it not to be, Taurus is rather useless here and also expensive to employ.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Getting back to your original point... the International Legion's language problem is, IMHO, a serious problem. I have never understood why there isn't a requirement of English for all members, including Ukrainian.
That was not my point. Inside the IL English should be standard and I guess it de facto is.
But what happens if you need to talk to someone outside the IL? Some Ukrainian yokel (sorry) who has never spoken a word of English? Or, even if he has - what are the chances he learned military or medical slang in high school?
My point is that if you go to a foreign country to fight, you ought to learn the ****ing language - at least the very basics. For your own sake.
I have nothing more to add. -
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Working language in NATO is English.
And Ukraine is in NATO? What point are you trying to make here?
-
Hmm, my comment about the US soldier not speaking Ukrainian has sparked a discussion in a direction that was not intended at all.
What I meant is that I was surprised that he was so unprepared in the language department. He knew he was going to a foreign country where he likely needed to communicate with people who don't speak English. In highly critical situations where your life depends on it. 100 words, no grammar, will get you through anything.
This was not meant as a quip at US language education in general.
-
12 hours ago, akd said:
Harrowing medevac:
Indeed, a harrowing video.
What I'm a bit surprised about is that the US soldier in the video, for all his professionalism as a soldier, seems not to be able to speak some basic Ukrainian. Words like 'wound', 'artillery', 'take', 'drive' etc... would have been tremendously helpful for him. A few words plus sign language gets you very far. Yet, he continues to speak English with the driver, who quite obviously doesn't understand a word of it.
-
1 hour ago, Kinophile said:
You summoned me, m'lud?!
I would have put money on Florida tripping someone, but maybe the idea of Florida becoming a dictatorship is not alien enough.
Anyway, what I meant about terrain is the ability to keep your population _inside_. Not defend versus an outside aggressor. The dictator of the Irish island would just have to close the ports and airports and make the possession of a boat a death penalty. Done.
For Russia, that's impossible. Too much of a border where you could just walk away.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
A bayonet? Really? I thought that fad had run its way in WWI...