Lethaface
-
Posts
4,026 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by Lethaface
-
-
13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I actually suspect it was for one of them: Russia. Russia’s reasons for starting this war are opaque but we do know they did not need any of Ukraine’s resources, the line of conspiracies (bio labs, or whatever John Kettler was going on about may he rest in peace) has dried up and if it was to shore up the Putin regime this is one helluva way to go about that.
I suspect this war had a large portion attributable to Russian need to push back on the West and western “encroachment”. Along with basically declaring the global system of order no longer valid because if you are a revisionist state…you revise. So for one party the root interest for this war does kinda seem to be centred on the West, Ukraine got caught in the middle in a lot of ways. All war is communication and in many ways Ukraine was (and is) the medium, not the message itself.
Ps 2 at the same time obviously everything is 'in the mix'. Russia's position on the world ladder sure has it's influence on their outlook. So perhaps it's a bit like a chicken vs egg theory framework (did JK pass away? If so may he RIP, he had a good soul imo).
-
4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I actually suspect it was for one of them: Russia. Russia’s reasons for starting this war are opaque but we do know they did not need any of Ukraine’s resources, the line of conspiracies (bio labs, or whatever John Kettler was going on about may he rest in peace) has dried up and if it was to shore up the Putin regime this is one helluva way to go about that.
I suspect this war had a large portion attributable to Russian need to push back on the West and western “encroachment”. Along with basically declaring the global system of order no longer valid because if you are a revisionist state…you revise. So for one party the root interest for this war does kinda seem to be centred on the West, Ukraine got caught in the middle in a lot of ways. All war is communication and in many ways Ukraine was (and is) the medium, not the message itself.
PS Maybe we in the West sometimes communicate to ourselves (and or others) that we have more to do with with the plot of 'as the world turns' than we actually do have influence on it.
-
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:
I actually suspect it was for one of them: Russia. Russia’s reasons for starting this war are opaque but we do know they did not need any of Ukraine’s resources, the line of conspiracies (bio labs, or whatever John Kettler was going on about may he rest in peace) has dried up and if it was to shore up the Putin regime this is one helluva way to go about that.
I suspect this war had a large portion attributable to Russian need to push back on the West and western “encroachment”. Along with basically declaring the global system of order no longer valid because if you are a revisionist state…you revise. So for one party the root interest for this war does kinda seem to be centred on the West, Ukraine got caught in the middle in a lot of ways. All war is communication and in many ways Ukraine was (and is) the medium, not the message itself.
FWIW, I don't think the root interest of this war was centred on the West. The root interest was centered around the vested interest surrounding Ukraine (which also lead to CMBS), perhaps the perceived weakness of the West was instrumental in Russia going forward with the ordeal; I'll give you that.
-
To bring the subject back to Ukraine, I still don't expect a Ukr big push and Bakhmut still seems like the most promising area. I hope I'm wrong on the big push, because I only see it happening if it's successful.
-
1 minute ago, Carolus said:
Quick comment or PM regarding the "submarine front" for the uniniciated possible?
Look into the fleets currently available & underway. Something with Virginia class I guess.
-
41 minutes ago, kraze said:
And that's the point.
I guess someway or somehow we can sometimes actually agree
-
38 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:
How sweet it would be to see dutch F-16s shoot down Russian planes and bomb the hell out of their ground troops. Revenge is so much better than forgiving.
I personally wouldn't object
-
2 hours ago, Carolus said:
The problem is we might actually be in a perpetual world war, we just don't fully realise this yet. I admit, my feelings and thoughts are a bit hawkish on this matter.
It is not a conventional war for sure. It might never end up as another one after Ukraine, or it might. But it is already going and and it is not a war the vast majority of the Western peoples and their governments are even acknowledging that they are involved in.
The West and our democratic systems have an enormous amount of self-made problems we need to solve and plenty of moral flaws.
But the alternative that is currently trying to flip as many government around to globe to its side is one of completely nihilistic exploitation at best or one of ethno-fascist state ideology at worst. The question whether Putin, Xi, Kim Un, the Iranian regime or Assad and their apparatuses and followers will do completely unspeakable things to anyone in this forum and our families is not one of morals to them - it is merely one of whether it is useful to them and whether they have the opportunity to do it and maybe to get away with it.
There has been an embarrassing but small social media campaign a while ago in Germany of people from the right-populist to neo-fascist spectrum adopting pfps with a Russian flag and a message like "I'm not at war with Russia" or "I am a friend of the Russian people", which was sparked after a comment of the German foreign affairs secretary describing Germany or the West to be "at war" with Russia (diplomatically wrong and it might have been just a side comment, but it might also hint at her actually having a deeper understanding of the situation at large).
I could only think at how many of these people would end up if Russia established a regime just like in the occupied zones in Ukraine in Germany. "This must be a mistake, I called NATO bad on twitter" - "You have a nice daughter, German. And now dig the f*ing hole."
It is a new cold world war between "the worst system of government except for all other systems" and "the difference between you and the Uyghurs is that the Uyghurs are handily in reach of the CCP, but Xi promised the next illegal Chinese police station will come to a port city near you shortly", with Russia and China pouring enormous amounts of resources into psyops, cyber, social networking and industrial espionage. Information warfare which makes their own populations and the populations of their enemies forget the extent of their own crimes and massacres. People openly clamour that the Tianamen Square massacre is a Western psyop and don't forget one million dead Russian babies in Donbass CNN is telling you nothing about.
Look how we in this forum needed to brainstorm for a bit to remind ourselves what Russia has actually done in the past. Blatant murders of journalists and dissidents, in our own countries, while grinning into our faces. China just put out bounties for the heads of dissidents from HongKong. The next polonium tea is green.
All of it fields in which the West is currently not able and/or not willing to compete in, and/or largely unable to defend itself against. And every country in Asia, Africa, America and Europe that is flipped through corruption, military support and propping up dictators will make economic sanctions more toothless, and the global order more hollow, turning their societies isolationist to achieve Schmittian multipolarity, or blocking decisions in entities like NATO, EU or UN.
It very much does look like a global underhanded war of systems to me.
There is nothing in history that says things always have to improve or that the Western Man is the rightful God-given owner of global power, and thank goodness we majorly don't believe in the latter anymore. But I always hoped whichever hegemony eventually replaces the West would be more or at least equally humane, not gleefully more cruel. And I don't think a hope like that is a bad thing to work towards.
The war you speak of has been going on already for a long time, it is called geopolitics ;-). China has, probably since Desert Storm or before, came up with a doctrine to win that war.
There is however difference between a full hot war right now vs a economy backed mainly sea/ocean based war of attrition later. The propaganda channels don't always present the full width of information; for example on the submarine 'front' for the USA/NATO
.
-
2 hours ago, danfrodo said:
Imagine the stress he is under!
This
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
It can (and is both), most proxy wars are, at least the defensive ones. Ukraine definitely represents Western interests in this war, which also overlap with their own self defence. See all the wars where those overlaps did not happen and exactly what we did about it. If Russia suddenly did not matter to us or Ukraine kicking their butts on our behalf did not matter, watch how fast support would dry up on what would be viewed as a "border skirmish in Eastern Europe".
I guess the crux is in semantics, see my previous post. There is overlap but that isn't the 'root cause/interest' for the warring parties.
-
3 hours ago, Astrophel said:
Wallace reveals why he is not the calibre for a Nato chief and how he ranks in the second division of the already doubtful Tory government in UK. We should be thankful that Ukraine is fighting our war and give them everything they need. All the Ukrainians who have lost life and limb in this war deserve an apology from Wallace.
What does he want to preserve his stocks for? Is he planning to invade Argentina?
Without wanting to but actually repeating myself; this is not our war. Are you dying for it?
-
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Thanks for the reminder of MH-17. Russia is so horrible that it's easy to make a list of its crimes, but it's tricky keep that list short.
Steve
Although It's just anecdotal I've been on the MH-17 flight quite a number of times (flying to/from Malaysia) and indirectly know some people who perished on the flight (I also witnessed part of the impressive ceremony through the country). At the times I was on the flight I was more worried about it going over Afghanistan.
Apart from that; the way the Russian regime handled MH-17 was rather infuriating for anyone involved. At the same 'time', our intelligence services have had quite some interactions with their Russian counterparts before and after that incident. So the way Russia behaved was not a surprise.
Also on another note, as a human I'm not convinced those who shot down that airplane did intentionally destroy a civilian airplane full of passengers. But 'we' certainly didn't forget, nor forgive.
-
4 hours ago, Astrophel said:
No, Netherlands is not on "the far side of the moon". This repeated dig at Netherlands seems quite uncalled for. Netherlands support to Ukraine was immediate despite a large part of the population not being able to find Ukraine on a map. After MH17 Netherlands has no illusions about modern russia. MH17 was a deliberate act of war directed at Dutch people by russians. Netherlands was immediately supportive of Ukraine in the current war.
Threats from Moscow were directed very early to Netherlands and the Port of Rotterdam in particular. The nuclear hawks in Moscow were prominent. The Dutch Government communicated a clear message that Patriot systems were on full alert and that Netherlands would not be intimidated. The Dutch resolve has not faltered as far as I can see. Netherlands is hosting more refugees than UK and is playing its part with provision of military and financial aid, as well as performing a vital logistics function. Netherlands was one of the first if not the first to promise F16s.
Please let us resist the temptation to imagine fault lines in the Nato alliance. When it comes to a russian threat to destroy the port of Rotterdam then believe me Netherlands is as much in the front line as Warsaw.
I didn't perceive those comments as offensive towards the Netherlands, but I'm not really patriotically sensitive ;-). I agree though that our country has, on this subject, done a decent job.
And I agree on NATO. Even for our small Baltic brothers we will do our duty (although obviously that is like everything I post my opinion and or my understanding, in this case of how our armed forces would react). -
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
There's another major issue in play right now, which is that prior to Putin launching this war there was a massive disagreement amongst NATO and its allies about how to deal with increasing Russian aggression and destabilization efforts. For the most part *ALL* nations found it expedient to largely not respond to things like state sponsored acts of murder and terrorism being committed on its territory. It largely didn't respond to its diplomats being harassed and even physically harmed. It didn't do anything significant about a raft of coup plots (including one in a NATO country, BTW) and election interference. State sponsored corruption never had a serious chance of being challenged. Russian efforts to undermine peace and stability in the Middle East was not seriously confronted. Not to mention a war being conducted directly on the border of its territory for 8 years. Etc.
This war gave NATO and its allies a chance to act in unison instead of continuing to debate and delay the inevitable. This is an opportunity that Russia had expected would be squandered. He was wrong, but it will only be meaningful if the collective action holds. Which is why Ukraine must be supported fully and thoroughly.
While it might be that politicians in NATO and its allies are "using" Ukraine as a tool, there is a genuine emotional interest to help them. That is genuine. But if strategic interests were not in alignment, it would not be enough to act so strongly (or at all, a pessimist could say)
Steve
This is basically how I think but phrased differently and perhaps some different opinions on the edges.
-
And to be fully specific in my understanding if someone in Ukraine would be fighting the war on our behalf it would mean they would actually rather be part of Russia or indifferent about it, but just fighting against Russia because we want them to do so. That's a bit hyperbole perhaps, just as I like it :).
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Largely agree with what you wrote, but not exactly with your conclusion. See my previous post about long standing Russian aggression.
Ukraine might not be thinking it is fighting this war on our behalf, yet it very much is anyway. These are not incompatible concepts. Neither is it incompatible for the West to "use" Ukraine as a tool for its own benefit, but at the same time deeply care about Ukraine's future and the lives of its people. Those are also not incompatible and are, in fact, why the West's usual anti-war left is nearly universally in favor of arming Ukraine.
This really SHOULD have been NATO's fight (in some form) before it got to Feb 23, 2023. Russia was clearly, and repeatedly, showing it was an active, ongoing threat to the countries within NATO. The problem was Russia played the game of "just enough, but not too much" that NATO/West really couldn't figure out how to respond. Lots and lots of things could have been done and were not, allow Russia's behavior to continue and even get worse.
In other words, NATO and its allies apparently needed Putin to clearly step over the line before it could get it's disorganized house in order to strike back against Russian aggression and threats to democracy. No other options seemed to be on the table for improving the situation, therefore this war is in no small way being fought on behalf of NATO/West even if Ukraine has selfish reasons for fighting it.
Steve
Maybe it's just semantics, but another country fighting a war on 'our behalf' doesn't sound right in my vocabulary; it would mean they are fighting the war more for our interests than their own. I probably wouldn't support such a war, but I do wholeheartedly support the Ukrainians in their resolve
(and our support).
Perhaps a factor in this semantic/conceptual interpretation is that I've heard/read many people stating (in NL at least) that we/USA are letting the Ukrainians die for our cause, NATO/US is actually directing the war, bla bla and thus we should force ceasefire to stop the bloodshed. We are not in a position to stop it; Ukrainians are fighting for their own cause and we are helping them. And yes helping them in this case might also mean helping ourselves. I guess this perhaps is what you and @Maciej Zwolinski conclude/mean.
At the same time I think that whether or not NATO's posturing in the past has facilitated Russia's behavior is a different question, on another interesting level (conceptual). As are the consequences of NATO's actual posturing during the conflict. We certainly have (vested) interests in Ukraine winning the war and Russia's means of waging war detoriating, but the complete destruction of Russia's regime isn't or shouldn't necessarily our political goal (although for Ukraine it is).The interesting question is, of course, whether Ukraine inside NATO could have prevented this war. Another one certain people will put up is whether a more constructive/cooperative posture towards Russia in the early 90's could have done more towards a better Russia. To be honest on both subjects I don't have any new great takes :D.
For better or for worse, the main reason why Ukraine wasn't in NATO yet was to prevent a war such as the one which is taking place now; or a larger war. Now that ship has sailed. Whatever to think of Scholz, his 'zeitenwende' statement was rather accurate.
The implications for the future are as of yet largely unknown, but they will be 'large' as compared to how 'things' were before. But we haven't arrived in the 'post' era yet.
I agree that 'we' have betted enough towards this pot (the war), that we might as well go all in. But all in with the money on the table, not with the house, car and other assets. I don't get people voting for an open war between Russia and NATO. But if it comes to that, we will have to take responsibility in our own hands including doing the dying. -
4 hours ago, kraze said:
Western Europe should exhale with ease then because historically Russia had trouble reaching any of it.
Which is historically correct. But history != future, but then we now have NATO exactly for this reason.
Also to be fair, it's not like other (European) countries have been fairies historically. For my country we don't have to go back very far, even for officially known/recognized 'mishaps'. We have our 'politionele acties' in Indonesia directly after WW2, for example. So personally I don't think history is that relevant today, I mean it is interesting but one doesn't need history to declare the facts on the ground today. As a matter of fact, extrapolating history is often a fallacy used for predicting the future. -
5 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
There are several reasons, to quote some of the top of the head:
First, Russian performance against Ukraine is an outlier, caused by their attempting a coup Prigozhin style but finding their soldiers in a middle of the biggest conventional war after WW2 in columns of march. This practically killed their professional army in the first month of the war and had to create a new one on the fly. It was a result of hugely wrong assumptions, which are not going to be repeated in a war against a NATO member They would come properly mobilised and their peformance would be better. How much better, I do not know exactly.
Second, out of those 31 countries, the only one which matters is the US. I am not so sure about the ablility of the rest of the European NATO members to effectively help protect the Eastern flank (prior to the weapons shopping spree on which Poland embarked; but the final outcome of this is uncertain). Even if they are fully willing. So the defence of Europe hangs on the result of US electorate not electing a radical isolationist because of their internal political issues, on which we have no influence, like after WW I. It would be much more comfortable if Russia was decisively defeated and deprived of the means to try and make a comeback as a world threatening empire.
Third, and this is probably the most likely risk, is that after a hypothetical Ukrainian defeat, Russia gets wind in its sails, returns to its plans to be a World-threatening empire and new Cold War starts with the current NATO east flank being the frontier states. Even if Russia is ultimately deterred from starting a new shooting war this would not a good place to be.
Imo you are overestimating Russia. They had the size of Italy's economy. Their economy is/was reliant on 57% raw material export, the rest largely being internal services. Yes they have a lot of resources, but not that much industrial / technological infrastructure. We (including East Europe) did indeed also f up ourselves on the security/defense spectrum, some more then others, but I believe the 'Russia can invade any minute' theory is a fallacy. I also do think that politically and strategically the non-USA assets of NATO are relevant. Perhaps not as relevant as they could be, so there is work to do.
-
6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Without assistance they would lose. We are either with them all the way or not at all. Quick enough to invade Iraq, remember the reason? Weapons of mass destruction. Kuwait was not a member of NATO either but to have boots on the ground was reasonable because of weapons of mass destruction. Now Russian has weapons of mass destruction and threatening to use them. Frankly speaking I am absolutely disgusted with all the Two Bob Each Way attitude. Look up what Two Bob Each Way means. It is the West European attitude.
Leaving in the middle what I think about the two bob each way attitude, I don't agree applying it ONLY to West European attitude. Besides, the first Desert Storm was sort of UN sanctioned probably 'justified' intervention. The second war, OIF, was probably a petpeeve of certain USA leadership elements and based on falsified events and with a horrible endgame. But that's another topic
Another twist: if Russia didn't have a bunch of Nukes laying around, there would have probably be a 'no-fly zone' in effect since Feb 2022.
I don't get people happily advocating pushing into WW3. NATO troops inside Crimea have a much higher chance of attracting nuclear payloads compared to Ukrainian troops. I get war (or rather the consequences) is emotional, I also have them. While it is wise to listen to emotions, it is not wise to directly act based on emotions.
But perhaps that's just my Dutch blood, with a sprinkle of east-Prussian to be fully transparent
-
6 hours ago, Huba said:
Polish military twittershpere consensus is more or less that it was to be expected. PL military industry is stretched to maximum already, and after bad experiences with Leo2PL is not willing to go an extra mile to make this service center happen without it being reasonably profitable. Like usually with this type of situations, there's not nearly enough public info to really get to the bottom of who is at fault here, and to what degree.
Maybe nobody is at fault and it's 'just' converged interests. If I were a German taxpayer it wouldn't make me happy if Polish (or whatever other country) industry makes good profit off my taxmoney intended for direct support to Ukraine.
If I were a Polish for profit business I can understand that if I have to choose between little profit vs large profit I would choose large.
-
6 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
Every Russian soldier killed by the Ukrainians is someone our soldiers will not have to shoot at. I have a son of military age and another one who will be in a couple of years, so as callous as it sounds, I would gladly have the Ukrainians fight that fight for our money.
I don't see it as a guarantee that there will be a war between NATO and Russia on the next couple of years. I don't have children (yet? who knows lol), but I feel that if my country would get engaged in a war I won't be happy to pay others to fight it for us/me (duty calls). Although I can perfectly and fully understand not wishing to see your son go to the front.
-
8 minutes ago, Astrophel said:
A and B are true imo. However, Putin would have gone further had he could. The rhetoric stated his intent and they left the railway network intact.
As to whether Ukraine is fighting on our behalf I would introduce another thought. Can humankind confidently live on a planet where nuclear armed bullies threaten armageddon if they don't get to confiscate and exterminate what they don't like? Ukraine did not ask to be the frontline in WW3 but that is what is at stake - a war of principles.
That would mean anyone on the planet fighting against an oppressor is fighting a war on our behalf. From a philosophy pov I could see some merit in that idea, but in practical terms it becomes rather vague or result in a sort of perpetuous world war.
-
5 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
This is the view from Western Europe.
For most people in the Baltics and Central Europe it is absolutely clear, that the Ukraine is fighting this war on our behalf. Every Russian soldier killed by the Ukrainians is someone our soldiers will not have to shoot at. I have a son of military age and another one who will be in a couple of years, so as callous as it sounds, I would gladly have the Ukrainians fight that fight for our money.
For what it is worth, I do not exactly understand why countries in Europe further to the West are not worried more. We are the next border after Ukraine, but the Netherlands are not exactly on the far side of the Moon either.
I think we are touching upon several points here, maybe translation is a thing too (English being not our first language, although afaik we both have a rather good understanding of it).
A) Without Russia invading Ukraine in 2022, there would be no full spectrum hot war between Ukraine and Russia. The destruction of Russia's armed forces in and of itself wasn't and shouldn't have been a goal without that event happening.
In hindsight of course we can connect more dots and say 'we should have X', but that's only valid for the 'future' we are living today. If Russia hadn't invaded, there would be no war. There would also be no war to be fought on behalf of the West, because there would be no reason for it.So, this war happened because Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine decided to fight back against it (unlike Crimea 2014). Not because of any other reason. The primary goal of the war is to kick Russia out of Ukraine, so Ukraine can follow their own path as they see fit.
Ukraine isn't trying to kick out Russia from their country because they have romantic feelings about other countries. No, they are trying to do it on their own behalf: they don't want Russia in their country.B ) Given that Russia has acted the way it did, it is now clear for all to see that the security situation in Europe isn't what we thought it was a decade ago. Russia has shown (repeatedly) it is not to be trusted and will even escalate to large scale full spectrum warfare against major countries, at the cost of many innocent lives, to get what it wants. This is turn has made obvious that Europe's largely neglected security against an 'Eastern' threat is sub par and needs to be addressed, especially given the new/current security outlook. Even if Russia won't be able to go on another adventure for the next 5-10 years whatever, there's no guarantees it won't try something again later down the line so we better prepare ourselves.
C) I personally doubt Russia would have invaded Poland and or the Baltics if they would have successfully annexed Ukraine after a short war. That would mean a war against NATO, which is a whole different ballgame (never mind ballpark
). They'd probably like those territories inside the greater Russian imperium, especially Putain, they'd probably do it if they knew they'd get away with it. But that's definitely not a certainty. The Polish army already was a sizable force, no pushover.
If those countries believe NATO wouldn't come to their help, well than why are they even in NATO.D) A weakened Russia is helpful to our security. Yes it (most likely) is, especially now that the West has decided to choose the Ukrainian's side Russia has become a defacto enemy like during the less friendly phases of the Cold War. That doesn't mean Ukraine is fighting it on our behalf though. There is a shared 'interest', which is why it is wise for us to support Ukraine achieving victory. Therefor I'm in favor of a 'full send' support, I don't like half measures because in the end they are more costly and time consuming. But there's always geopolitics and various interests involved so things move at the pace they move.
E) Worrying has never helped anyone. I don't know if people here don't worry, I don't like to worry though. But that doesn't mean we/I think we shouldn't be properly preparing so we can prevent poor performance in the future. Maybe we have more trust in NATO given our history. It probably also helps we're not directly on the border.
Hence why I think it is a fallacy to state that Ukraine is fighting the war on our behalf. They are fighting for their country, they are fighting a just war of self defense. Their victory is absolutely in our interest (for various reasons) and so we should support them win it.Now if Russia had already defacto declared war on NATO and it was a given they would attack NATO after they are done with Ukraine; then one could say Ukraine would be fighting a war on our behalf. But in that case we'd probably be fighting it alongside them.
-
7 hours ago, kevinkin said:
Without significant NATO assistance, it's getting cruel to ask the UA to do what is nearly impossible on the west's behalf. If the west thinks Ukraine already won the war and Russian lost in geostrategic terms, let's move Putin over to our way of thinking. And fast.
I keep reading about how Ukraine is fighting this war on the West behalf. No, they are fighting this war to stop Russia from invading/annexing their country. They are fighting it for their own behalf (fortunately).
Yes we also have interests in it, but please stop the framing. Ukrainians are doing the dying, they have decided to do it, we didn't need to convince m or pay m to do it.
.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Nice semi-double entendre