How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

30 minutes ago, Splinty said:

I didn't do 2 tours in Iraq to make somebody rich. I went to fight terrorists. You will find the vast majority of my felllow military members went for the same reason. 

I don't doubt that you and many or most others went there for all the right reason. But that is not why you were sent to Iraq. We all know that the Bush administration lied to you and the whole world and good people had to suffer and die for it. And some rich people got richer. 

In fact, I think the tragedy is that even the bad guys think that they are doing it for all the right reasons.

[Haiduk]

59 minutes ago, Butschi said:

 

As others have pointed out, had the question been if we are willing to fight for freedom, democracy, etc. the answer would probably have been different.

And finally, let me be honest with you: I support my government in sending billions in money and materiel to help you defend your lives, your right to decide for yourselves, your freedom and, yes, your human rights and the possibility to enjoy your lives. Not the random lines on the map called Ukraine.

 

I think, this opinion is self-deception. "Democracy, freedom, rights" is just abstract set of terms without their carriers and those, who maintains by the laws existing of this values. This thing is a country, a nation as commonwealth of people, united by some values and culture and a state, as a rule representative of this commonwealth. 

Yes, we fight for freedom and rights too, but in first order we fight for the same "lines on the map", which mark our land, our cultural and national space - all what compose a country, which during hundreds of years has been growing and maintains these freedom and rights. 

But now I understand better, why so many western politics and usual people say in surprise "why you fight for pieces of land (as variat "for your corrupted government") and dooming many of your people on death and injuries? Fight for the territories - fi, how this "imperialistic"! You should start negotiations and make concessions with Russia, yes, you will lose a land, but you can leave in piece, you can develop democracy and you can become a EU/NATO member (sometime later... maybe... when pigs fly).   

Fight for "democracy and rights" only away from fight for own country is a way of atomisation of society. Bright example is a PLC of 17th century, were nobility fought only for own "rights", but not for country and in result this finished with crash of the state. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Reportedly no damages on the bridge, a movement has been opened again. Russians claimed UKR used converted S-200 SAM misisles for attack. Number of used missiles is unknown - locals write about 4,6 and even 11 explosions.

I wonder, why Storm Shadow arn't used? Either Kerch bridge is "restricted" target for them in order to "not escalate" 

[Teufel]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

 

As for fighting for my country: That is precisely the point. I couldn't care less about my country. My country is just a bunch of lines on a map. It was totally random that I was born within the confines of these lines and not others. Three centuries ago my country didn't even exist. It was a number of smaller areas on a map with some dudes constantly wanting to redraw those lines because they didn't have a playstation or something similar and were bored. Except for the random nobleman who "owned" that patch of land, nobody cared about those lines on the map and much less would have wanted to fight for them. Enter Napoleon and suddenly people here were told that they were Germans and that this conglomerate of lines on a map is something glorious worth fighting and dying for, instead of... well, living in a country that was actually more civilized but with less noblemen still having their heads attached to their necks.

In the following years, people were told that, since they were born inside these lines on a map, they had to hate people for being born inside the neighbouring lines on the map. After the inevitable war, the then "Germans" could finally become Germans, united under a (suddenly beloved) nobleman who called himself emperor. The emperor was of Prussian origin and thus the Germans were told that a militaristic society is the best. With great "Hurray!" millions went to the next war... because... was it even about lines on a map? Or just because going to war is so awesome? Millions of dead later - who absolutely enjoyed the experience of dying for their country (if nothing else), Germans had a brief experiment with nasty leftist ideas like, actually voting for stuff and such.

That ended quickly, when Germans were told that being randomly born to the right parents, they were better than people who were randomly born to different people. And also that the lines on that map absolutely need to be redrawn because people with the right parents need more space and those people being born to parents to the east in areas surrounded by lines called "Poland", "Russia" or "Ukraine" wouldn't need that space, anyway. Oh, and Germans were of course told that being born within the right set of lines, the absolute best is of course to fight and die for that set of lines.

After the inevitable war with even more dead, some people wondered whether those "leftist" ideas weren't all that bad, after all. Voting, inviolability of human dignity, etc. But alas, the lines on the map called Germany had been split into two sets of lines. Both sides were told that it was absolutely preferable to kill their relatives on the other side to allowing them to redraw the lines. If that didn't help it was absolutely necessary to just convert both Germanies, and if necessary the whole world, into a nuclear wasteland.

See, we are kind of fed up with this nonsense of "dying for our country". In between we found out that human rights, like e.g. not getting randomly imprisoned and shot without trial, kind of made sense and that our neighbours weren't as bad as we were told. Even the French. Especially the French. As others have pointed out, had the question been if we are willing to fight for freedom, democracy, etc. the answer would probably have been different.

And finally, let me be honest with you: I support my government in sending billions in money and materiel to help you defend your lives, your right to decide for yourselves, your freedom and, yes, your human rights and the possibility to enjoy your lives. Not the random lines on the map called Ukraine.

 

I’ve already weighed on this topic further back at length so will not repeat again. Agree with you on the principles of territorial sovereignty and integrity, but must also add two things.

Firstly, escaping most would prefer in the choice of fight or flight. Not every situation allows that, fighting is not always by choice. Forget the respect of civilian lives or rules of war, the ICC was formed for a reason. Thus, if only thing standing between your and families of your fellow citizens is you with gun in hand. Then you fight, like it or not.

Secondly, from experience, Haiduk is right on offensive warfare due to ideology not being the same as defensive due to existential threat. The war in Ukraine is existential, not lines on maps as it be perceived. Forcing Russia out is breaking the back and crippling their Sovjet system of tyranny, not only for existence of Ukraine as sovereign nation, but for you and me further to the west across some of those lines on maps.

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

which mark our land, our cultural and national space - all what compose a country, which during hundreds of years has been growing and maintains these freedom and rights.

That is what I was trying to explain with my story. Almost every country on this planet is the result of what some nobleman or other similar despot was able to take by force and was able to hold on to. A few hundred years ago, nobody cared about that. You ploughed your field and to which fiefdom you belonged had little meaning. Only with the birth of nation states were people deceived into believing these "lines on a map" had actual value by telling us it was about tradition and culture and all that.

If this line on a map is the border between civilization and tyranny, as in your case, that border has a meaning. But because of that not because of any construct called "nation". People, culture and tradition on this side of the German/Dutch border aren't much different than people on the other side. On the other hand, Swabians are an entirely different lot than people in Hamburg.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Butschi
typos

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, Holien said:

Hmm have you been reading the same thread as me?

Can you explain further how Russia can dictate terms and bring this war to an end?

Maybe we are missing something that you can explain?

You know he's just a silly troll,  right? 

[Butschi]

14 minutes ago, Teufel said:

Firstly, escaping most would prefer in the choice of fight or flight. Not every situation allows that, fighting is not always by choice. Forget the respect of civilian lives or rules of war, the ICC was formed for a reason. Thus, if only thing standing between your and families of your fellow citizens is you with gun in hand. Then you fight, like it or not.

Secondly, from experience, Haiduk is right on offensive warfare due to ideology not being the same as defensive due to existential threat. The war in Ukraine is existential, not lines on maps as it be perceived. Forcing Russia out is breaking the back and crippling their Sovjet system of tyranny, not only for existence of Ukraine as sovereign nation, but for you and me further to the west across some of those lines on maps.

I don't disagree, did I mention something to the contrary of what you write here? But we were discussing about whether people, especially in Western Europe, want to fight for their country, not defending their lives, their values, etc. A country is an abstract construct (to me, to Haiduk, democracy and freedom seem to be as abstract). For me what counts is people, rights, values, the possibility to enjoy life, etc.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Butschi

[Teufel]

41 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I don't disagree, did I mention something to the contrary of what you write here?

You mentioned several times in various replies reasons in the form of indoctrination or populism. Emperor’s thirst for power, more modern emperors, let’s just call them Third Reich, Bush administration, well think you get where this is going. It seems to me you stand firmly on wars being fought for expansion of power through the indoctrination of citizens.

My point was that - yes, you are correct in those aspects. Russia is fight for exactly all the reasons that you mentioned, e.g., more power, more wealth, spreading their tyranny beyond own borders or own citizens. You exemplify and offer reasons others than existential crisis as reason for war. Running away and not defending lines on maps is the same as seeking what you lost elsewhere. Then question comes when will you fight if not first time around.

Heard it countless times from those that never fired single round in their life. Less so with flesh and blood as target, they will fight for the right reasons. My point was, you don’t chose if you are on the receiving end, win or lose, you fight.

That was where my understanding of your position of argument came from.

Edit: Didn’t see your last reply while writing this post. So allow me to add, no ideology ever including freedom of choice has ever attacked another nation built on freedom of choice unprovoked. Proving your own point. At the same time, even the countries of tyrannical regimes fighting in defense after whatever provocation of war, have done so for existential reasons.

Now we can claim Nazi-Germany or fascist Italy were created by free choice. Let’s agree it was so, when war came around were they still countries built on freedom of choice?

Edited August 12, 2023 by Teufel

[Butschi]

25 minutes ago, Teufel said:

You mentioned several times in various replies reasons in the form of indoctrination or populism. Emperor’s thirst for power, more modern emperors, let’s just call them Third Reich, Bush administration, well think you get where this is going. It seems to me you stand firmly on wars being fought for expansion of power through the indoctrination of citizens.

My point was that - yes, you are correct in those aspects. Russia is fight for exactly all the reasons that you mentioned, e.g., more power, more wealth, spreading their tyranny beyond own borders. of citizens. You exemplify and offer reasons others than existential crisis as reason for war. Running away and not defending lines on maps is the same as seeking what you lost elsewhere. Then question comes when you will fight if not first time around.

Heard it countless times from those that never fired single round in their life. Less so with flesh and blood as target, they will fight for the right reasons. My point was, you don’t chose if you are on the receiving end, win or lose, you fight.

That was where my understanding of your position of argument came from.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. As I am someone who indeed never fired a single round in my life, of course I can't tell under what circumstances I'd be willing to do so. And yes, if attacked, you either run away or defend yourself but you think about the reasons later. And - maybe I made that point not clear enough - I said that I am all for helping Ukrainians to defend themselves and all that Ukraine - in contrast to Russia - stands for.

We were talking about the explicit question if people are willing to fight for their country, though. Not for survival, freedom, property or anything else. I admit that "country" can have an entirely different meaning for different people. In Western Europe, that appears to be especially unwilling to fight, many realized that this "country" is more of an administrative unit that has historical reasons than an actual divider between cultures and values. Who wants to fight or die for administrative units that happen to be drawn this way on a map instead of another way for all the reasons I wrote about before?

Edited August 12, 2023 by Butschi

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

 

As for fighting for my country: That is precisely the point. I couldn't care less about my country. My country is just a bunch of lines on a map. It was totally random that I was born within the confines of these lines and not others. Three centuries ago my country didn't even exist. It was a number of smaller areas on a map with some dudes constantly wanting to redraw those lines because they didn't have a playstation or something similar and were bored. Except for the random nobleman who "owned" that patch of land, nobody cared about those lines on the map and much less would have wanted to fight for them. Enter Napoleon and suddenly people here were told that they were Germans and that this conglomerate of lines on a map is something glorious worth fighting and dying for, instead of... well, living in a country that was actually more civilized but with less noblemen still having their heads attached to their necks.

In the following years, people were told that, since they were born inside these lines on a map, they had to hate people for being born inside the neighbouring lines on the map. After the inevitable war, the then "Germans" could finally become Germans, united under a (suddenly beloved) nobleman who called himself emperor. The emperor was of Prussian origin and thus the Germans were told that a militaristic society is the best. With great "Hurray!" millions went to the next war... because... was it even about lines on a map? Or just because going to war is so awesome? Millions of dead later - who absolutely enjoyed the experience of dying for their country (if nothing else), Germans had a brief experiment with nasty leftist ideas like, actually voting for stuff and such.

That ended quickly, when Germans were told that being randomly born to the right parents, they were better than people who were randomly born to different people. And also that the lines on that map absolutely need to be redrawn because people with the right parents need more space and those people being born to parents to the east in areas surrounded by lines called "Poland", "Russia" or "Ukraine" wouldn't need that space, anyway. Oh, and Germans were of course told that being born within the right set of lines, the absolute best is of course to fight and die for that set of lines.

After the inevitable war with even more dead, some people wondered whether those "leftist" ideas weren't all that bad, after all. Voting, inviolability of human dignity, etc. But alas, the lines on the map called Germany had been split into two sets of lines. Both sides were told that it was absolutely preferable to kill their relatives on the other side to allowing them to redraw the lines. If that didn't help it was absolutely necessary to just convert both Germanies, and if necessary the whole world, into a nuclear wasteland.

See, we are kind of fed up with this nonsense of "dying for our country". In between we found out that human rights, like e.g. not getting randomly imprisoned and shot without trial, kind of made sense and that our neighbours weren't as bad as we were told. Even the French. Especially the French. As others have pointed out, had the question been if we are willing to fight for freedom, democracy, etc. the answer would probably have been different.

And finally, let me be honest with you: I support my government in sending billions in money and materiel to help you defend your lives, your right to decide for yourselves, your freedom and, yes, your human rights and the possibility to enjoy your lives. Not the random lines on the map called Ukraine.

 

It's far easier than that. One fights for one's loved ones. I'm most of the time as annoyed as most people with my family and country, but I will tear the throat out of those who want to harm them with my bare teeth. Ukraine is not unique in that respect, they just know better than us  spoiled Westerners, what it means to live under the Russian boot. 

I don't like your words of disdain, Haiduk, your country has nothing to complain about  with regard to the West. We could have chosen for our own freedom, but we didn't. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[Butschi]

quoted myself instead of editing...

Edited August 12, 2023 by Butschi

[Splinty]

I didn't fight for the abstract concept of nationhood. But I DID choose to join the military (US Army) as a career. Because I love my friends and family, and being a soldier was my best way to serve THEM. When it actually came to war, I fought for the folks on my left and right. Nationhood sounds good as a thing to fight for, but there are very few people who actually do that.

[Haiduk]

Meanwhile something going on along Dnipro river. Ukrianian troops likely didn't withdrew back to the island from Kozachi Laheri and fighting reportedly continuig, or at least heavy shellings of the village. 

Russian milblogger Romanov92 in his stand-up on eastern entrance of Kozachi Laheri claims UKR troops are shelling the village too heavy and seized western part of it. But our experts consider this is not a true and our forces really can control either farm and vegetable storages complex on western outskirt of village, or a zone in 3-4 km west from the village) 

In addition, yesterday Russian TG issued a message that on the section of the road T-2206 between villages Rozdolne and Vil'na Ukraina (in Russian post latter one names as Vol'noye) Ukrainian diversion group in Russian uniform ambushed column of vehicles and after attack lurked in tree-plants. Casualties among Russian forces reported, but without detals. This road is in 13 km from old Dnipro bank, in 14 - 19 km from Nova Kakhovka and in 50 km from allegedle landing zone neare Kozachi Laheri. If this was real deep SOF raid, then Russian defense and control over the troops can be quicly disruted if Ukraine will conduct more scale operation. But this also could be local partisans or even a clashe with Russian deserters, which then was given for "UKR ambush"

According to Mashovets, Kozachi Laheri defends not 205th motor-rifle brigade, but 1445th motor-rifle regiment of Territorail Troops. And interesting detail, UKR landing near this village forced Russians to unbox own STRATEGICAL RESERVES. They now moving units of new-established Armies: 18th CAA of Southern military district and 25th CAA of Central military district. And it's demonstrative, they move these units not on Zaporizhzhia front, where their troops desperately need reinforcements, but into zone responsibility of Troops Grouping "Dnepr", where "nothing significant". Now only units of 18th CAA are deploying there - these are two regiments (26th and 28th MRRs) of 70th MRD in area of Nova Mayachka and Radensk. Other main formation of this division - 24th MRR, 17th TR and 81st SPHR are either in Crimea or on their way to deployment zone as well as units of 25th CAA.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Haiduk

[Teufel]

46 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Ah, thanks for clarifying. As I am someone who indeed never fired a single round in my life, of course I can't tell under what circumstances I'd be willing to do so. And yes, if attacked, you either run away or defend yourself but you think about the reasons later. And - maybe I made that point not clear enough - I said that I am all for helping Ukrainians to defend themselves and all that Ukraine - in contrast to Russia - stands for.

We were talking about the explicit question if people are willing to fight for their country, though. Not for survival, freedom, property or anything else. I admit that "country" can have an entirely different meaning for different people. In Western Europe, that appears to be especially unwilling to fight, many realized that this "country" is more of an administrative unit that has historical reasons than an actual divider between cultures and values. Who wants to fight or die for administrative units?

We are good! As I said as stubborn as mule, it’s good if we don’t agree, then we can discuss. Never point of convincing someone else their point is wrong, or passing judgments based on their opinions. Then we are going on path of indoctrination, which Russia happily exports and let’s us use on each other.

As someone already mentioned, Finland has much higher “willingness to fight” or whatever we call it than most neighboring countries. They been there, not once but twice and not that long ago. People forget the Finns fought the Sovjets twice during WW II and lost both times. The Sovjet Union did however not occupy the territories of Finland any of those times.

This was the point I was trying to make with saying “win or lose, you fight”.

Edit: Sorry, I keep missing the intended target. From my perspective, borders or administrative units is the same as freedom. As in governed by administrative authority that you elected and can remove from power peacefully, this is freedom. Different if someone forcefully comes to the same administrative office and says, under new management. You are not allowed to leave, and now you will do this, this, this and this.

Been there, seen that, worse part was - put this uniform on and go fight against your own kin. Nobody asking if you want to or not. They’ll torture or beat you if you refuse, and if you survive they then force you to go. Your family held under same administrative borders, new system. We fought and we lost, but those that survived live in freedom elsewhere.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Teufel

[danfrodo]

13 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

n addition, yesterday Russian TG issued a message that on the section of the road T-2206 between villages Rozdolne and Vil'na Ukraina (in Russian post latter one names as Vol'noye) Ukrainian diversion group in Russian uniform ambushed column of vehicles and after attack lurked in tree-plants. Casualties among Russian forces reported, but without detals. This road is in 13 km from old Dnipro bank, in 14 - 19 km from Nova Kakhovka and in 50 km from allegedle landing zone neare Kozachi Laheri. If this was real deep SOF raid, than Russian defense and control over the troops can be quicly disruted if Ukraine will conduct more scale operation. But this also could be local partisans or even a clashe with Russian deserters, which then was given for "UKR ambush"

this is interesting.  I have been hoping UKR can increase the raids across the Dnieper to cause RU response.  Of course, once RU commits enough forces there won't be any more raids  But those are all troops that will be out of position relative to any UKR breakthrough in the three attack sectors on the southern front.

[Teufel]

5 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

If anything, history has shown that excessive militarism is NOT conducive to peace, and that is the basic assumption most European countries operate under.

Now I am spamming thread with nonsense but must add.

Without excessive militarization during peacetime in response to such elsewhere - for example in USSR, Nazi-Germany, etc., there would be no free World. Can think I am exaggerating, but ask yourself what type of language tyrannies speak? That of mutual peacefulness or force?

[Teufel]

4 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

This is offtopic, but a few things:

The main reason for the invasion was hunting terrorists. The whole "democracy" thing was more of a propaganda slogan. It should be noted that there wasn't a single election in Afghanistan without massive manipulation. The Mullahs remained largely in power and were able to forbid newspaper if they didn't conform to islamic ideology. Warlords and criminals were put into high office in the government. Not that this government had much power outside of Kabul, where much of the "aid money" directly went to various warlords. This kind of corruption delegitimized democracy in Afghanistan completely.

BTW according to Human Rights watch only a third of girls actually went to school during the occupation. The USA alone put 1 billion into the country, although only 2% of that actually went to the afghan population, not the US Army, rich Afghans abroad or warlords.

Strong claims including quantitative data, could you please offer sources of such information? Yes, HRW is source you say but which report or publication?

Not trying to be an as*hole here, we can have our opinions all we want but we can’t have our own facts.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Teufel

[Teufel]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Reportedly no damages on the bridge, a movement has been opened again. Russians claimed UKR used converted S-200 SAM misisles for attack. Number of used missiles is unknown - locals write about 4,6 and even 11 explosions.

I wonder, why Storm Shadow arn't used? Either Kerch bridge is "restricted" target for them in order to "not escalate" 

To actually post something useful, here is some more footage on the same incident.

Add to those above the following and we got ourselves something of a ballgame.

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Teufel

[kevinkin]

Some good news from the the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war.html

Ukrainian forces have progressed about 10 to 12 miles along both lines from their starting places at the onset of the counteroffensive in early June. Kyiv’s goal is to reach the Sea of Azov and drive a wedge into the so-called land bridge between Russia and Crimea, which is vital to the Russian military’s supply routes to the west.

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by kevinkin

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Some good news form the the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war.html

Holy Moly!  10-12 miles of advance?  Now we're talking.  I know corrosion has been the strategy but sooner or later gotta kick the murderers out.  Now we wait to see if this leads to a bigger breakthrough.  RU will probably throw everything available to stop it, hopefully stealing from other sectors and UKR can start to advance elsewhere if this is stopped.

edit:  oh, read it more closely now.  10-12 miles since June.  

Edited August 12, 2023 by danfrodo

[kevinkin]

Yet:

The I.S.W. said of that fight: “The Ukrainian forces’ ability to advance to the outskirts of Robotyne — which Russian forces have dedicated significant effort, time and resources to defend — remains significant even if Ukrainian gains are limited at this time.”

[dan/california]

5 hours ago, Haiduk said:

The chief of my partner company has been travelling to Netherland each two months to his wife (she is Netherland citizen) and told me how he had a conversation on this theme with some citizens of Breda. On the question "if Russia invaded Netherland, what would you do?", most of them answered either "maybe nothing" or "we would be escape" 

"Small equipped" professional armies of many EU countries are good for peacmaking operations or for low-intensity border conflicts, not for full-scale war. General Zaluzhnyi has good quote: "In case of full-scale invasion, it's repelled initially by professionals, but then teachers and engineers continuing". If European NATO hopes only on own combined small professioanal armies and air superiority in case of war with Russia (or China) I have bad news for them. So I understand "great arming" of Poland an Baltic states. 

 

The real thing this chart reveals is that proximity to Russia clarifies peoples thinking wonderfully.

[Artkin]

They should really consider adding an airburst functionality to these drones, theyre a bit too inaccurate when they strike

[Teufel]

34 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Yet:

The I.S.W. said of that fight: “The Ukrainian forces’ ability to advance to the outskirts of Robotyne — which Russian forces have dedicated significant effort, time and resources to defend — remains significant even if Ukrainian gains are limited at this time.”

Can’t seem to create Telegram link for some reason, so take for what it is, jungle telegraph until confirmed anyways.

Russians are bringing in troops to counterattack in front of the main Russian defensive line under heavy rain. Settlements that are surrounded on 2 sides for Robotyne and 3 sides for Urozhaine... basically burning through their meager reserves in senseless attacks. Reportedly, the same thing is happening around Klishchiivka / Bakhmut and we have seen videos of the destruction of 4 tanks yesterday in that area. The main result of all those counterattack is the loss of armor by Russia.

Found some additional info on the matter here. 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Teufel

[cesmonkey]

Ukraine's Anna Mailar says:

https://t.me/annamaliar/1006

Quote

The expert excitement around the left bank in the Kherson region has started again.

There is no cause for excitement.
I just came back from those places.
In order to land there, not to be destroyed and also to gain a foothold, you need to clear the territory and repel the enemy. We protect people, that's why we work as a counter-battery.
Yes, certain units performed a certain task there.

This is predictable, because our goal is to return all temporarily occupied territories, so we are working on this possibility everywhere.