Russia v Ukraine

[FairmontGS]

There's quite a disparity when you consider the Russian land mass is probably more productive (arable farming, mining, oil) than the Australian land mass. I mean Russian GDP output per person is ~$11k USD vs. Australia of ~$57k USD in 2021-22.

Is this mismanagement?

You can see why Putin is encouraging Syrian mercenaries to make a "holy pilgrimage" against the Nazis - the funding for this war along with the sanctions has probably bankrupted their economy.



https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...untries-by-gdp

[Citroënbender]

I would think there’s a much greater seasonal impact on farming for countries like Russia (and Ukraine).

It’s incredibly tragic that a country which had established and viable agriculture in February is going to be pushed into famine by virtually the same headquarters as 90 years ago.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

I would think there’s a much greater seasonal impact on farming for countries like Russia (and Ukraine).

It’s incredibly tragic that a country which had established and viable agriculture in February is going to be pushed into famine by virtually the same headquarters as 90 years ago.

And that was deliberate too, the mass starvation of Ukrainians by Stalin.

[Citroënbender]

Precisely my point.

[FairmontGS]

Russia-Ukraine live news: Alarm grows over Mariupol ‘catastrophe’

• The humanitarian situation in Mariupol continues to deteriorate with the United Nations citing reports of “looting and violent confrontations” over resources and satellite pictures showing extensive damage.
• Fighting intensified northwest of Kyiv, with the bulk of Russian ground forces 25km (16 miles) from the centre of the Ukrainian capital.
• The United States said it would rush up to $200m in additional small arms, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine.
• Russia said its troops could target supplies of Western weapons in Ukraine.
• Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said about 1,300 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since Russia’s invasion started.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...iupol-liveblog

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

And that was deliberate too, the mass starvation of Ukrainians by Stalin.

Yep...and all they had to do was say they did not want to join NATO.

But..oh wait..NATO wouldn't let Ukraine join because of concerns about corruption.

maybe Hunter Biden could help them out, he has connections.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

here are some docos done by mainstream media

You think the BBC still qualifies as "mainstream media"???
BBC thinks than anyone driving a car, or eating a hamburger, is a fascist right-wing dictator.
If they twisted any further to the left, their heads would literally be up their own *****.
Oh wait.

Originally Posted by T3rminator

as to not clutter the thread...

Too Late

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by zilo

Yep...and all they had to do was say they did not want to join NATO.

But..oh wait..NATO wouldn't let Ukraine join because of concerns about corruption.

The whole "NATO" debate is a furphy, and an exercise in reverse-circular logic.

If NATO had wanted to defend Ukraine against Russia, then they would have.
This war didn't come about because somebody forgot to tick the right box on their NATO Application form.

You have to remember that NATO is nothing but a multi-billion dollar political boondoggle, which in it's 70 years of existence has basically done SFA.
Even when directly called upon to act, for example in the Balkans, they basically just ****-farted around wasting money and waiving flags, and hobbling their forces with RoE designed to ensure they never actually do anything. As usual it was left to the USA and Britain to clean up the mess.

In the wake of 9-11, NATO invoked Article V for the first time in it's 50 year history (interestingly weeks after Australia invoked Article IV of the ANZUS treaty) and still proceeded to do sod all.
Once again, despite taking notional control of ISAF, it was left to the USA and Britain to carry the bulk of the effort.

NATO now has 30 members, including most of Europe. Even without the US, they could crush Russia like a bug, IF they ever actually got their collective ***** together and mobilised. But they won't.
However the big news going forward is that this seems to have finally ****ed of the Germans. They have always been a relatively strong supporter of NATO, and in many respects political leaders. But it seems that now they are going to ramp up to become Military leaders as well.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

You think the BBC still qualifies as "mainstream media"???
BBC thinks than anyone driving a car, or eating a hamburger, is a fascist right-wing dictator.
If they twisted any further to the left, their heads would literally be up their own *****.

If it is broadcasted to mums and dads 24/7, and accepted by society as being a common news source, then its mainstream to me. Don't matter if you agree with their views, think they are left, right, inverted or upside down. Not that I believe in this whole left vs right classification anyway, rarely is anything or anyone completely one or the other. Never heard it being misused so much in the last 5 years, its almost like someone kicked it off as a social experiment.

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

If NATO had wanted to defend Ukraine against Russia, then they would have.

I think that's the point. If Ukraine had been part of NATO, they would have been forced to step in even if they didn't want to. Putin sees this as a preemptive strike to prevent that from happening in the future.

NATO is seen as a gang by its adversaries, and members of the gang have gone to quite a few offensive wars in recent times. So what happens if one has intelligence that a member of the gang is about to attack or invade you, lets hypothetically say about to release a bioweapon in your city? If you strike first, you risk triggering Article 5. That's how the Russians see it. Ukraine was absolutely a way for some members of the gang to physically get closer to Moscow in a big way.

What I don't get is, if there was no intention for Ukraine to join, why didn't they just say it, wasn't it at least worth a shot to possibly prevent a war?

France has been pushing for an EU army for a while now, and they may have now convinced the Germans, and the rest of the EU members, that its needed. An EU army will also allow the Europeans to make military calls without US influence. But that will mean NATO would have to be disbanded, Europe can't afford to have two, so will the US allow it? Hmmmmm. All IMHO of course.

[T3rminator]

An interesting read. With unprecendented censorship and one sided reporting in the "free" world, it does make you wonder if we, the plebs, are being conditioned to accept Ww3 or a new Cold war. Yesterday, I think the general public would have been dead set against joining a war, but today there are tens of thousands of "volunteers" willing to risk jail in their own country to fight in the war. Yesterday, it was only the Russian regime, today we are against all things Russian, their produce, their vodka, their atheletes, their people etc etc.

The article - The Casualties of Empire
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/0...ies-of-empire/

The actual NATO publication - Cognitive Warfare
https://www.innovationhub-act.org/si...CW%20Final.pdf

Originally Posted by zilo

But..oh wait..NATO wouldn't let Ukraine join because of concerns about corruption.

Was it NATO or EU? Same same I suppose. Ironically, I believe lack of transparency on the democratic process was another item they had to fix as part of the plan.

[GO FURTHER]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

An interesting read. With unprecendented censorship and one sided reporting in the "free" world, it does make you wonder if we, the plebs, are being conditioned to accept Ww3 or a new Cold war. Yesterday, I think the general public would have been dead set against joining a war, but today there are tens of thousands of "volunteers" willing to risk jail in their own country to fight in the war. Yesterday, it was only the Russian regime, today we are against all things Russian, their produce, their vodka, their atheletes, their people etc etc.

I do often wonder, when war comes knocking on our doorstep again (and it will one day), whether young Australians are prepared to fight for this country today as previous generations did?

https://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...a248188b9683d9

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

I do often wonder, when war comes knocking on our doorstep again (and it will one day), whether young Australians are prepared to fight for this country today as previous generations did?

https://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...a248188b9683d9

If you value your liberties then I would certainly say young Australians will be prepared to fight, I certainly think Ukraine has proven that point with majority of young & old taking up arms to defend themselves for their way of life.

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

are you missing YB and all their conspiracy theories?

Who are you ??

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

he misses his un-moderated voice on YB

What has it been now, 2 years?

Nah, 18 months, I just checked - October 26 2020

WOW in your head much good to see you will never change



As you were

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by Itsme

I certainly think Ukraine has proven that point with majority of young & old taking up arms to defend themselves for their way of life.

Its a little distorted because 18-60 year old males are prevented from evacuating. They are forced to take up arms and fight, there is no choice. I can't imagine an 18 year old kid with no experience in combat, probably has never fired a shot before, being pushed to the front line to face military armed to the teeth. Cannon fodder or human shield sounds about right.

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

I do often wonder, when war comes knocking on our doorstep again (and it will one day), whether young Australians are prepared to fight for this country today as previous generations did?

I was just thinking the other day, if we could avoid another all out war for another generation, then we might be saved. From what I see, the next generation around the world have no desire to kill each other, they are more interested in their playstations, twitters, tik toks, tweerks and instagrams. But it doesn't look like we can hold out.

If we ever get invaded, everyone will need to fight, men, women, children of all ages. We are on an island, there is no where to evacuate to. Ask me a year ago, and I would have said there was little to no reason why anyone would want to put boots on our shores, we are too far, and our geography doesn't give a strategic foothold to attack our allies, except maybe NZ, but who sees NZ as a threat?! . But now with plans to obtain first strike capabilities, might be a different story.


Also just heard reported that 20,000 "foreign fighters" will be arriving on Ukraine's side. Mostly from NATO countries. Add the weapons supplied by NATO, I wonder if NATO has already got boots on the ground in this war covertly. Apparently Russia has recruited 16,000 foreign fighters on their side. Interestingly, heard a war analyst say that fighters who do not fight under the command of an army, are subject to different geneva convention rules. From what I understand, they have LESS rights than soldiers if they get captured. They will be treated as armed civilians / tourist fighters. Hmmmmm

[GO FURTHER]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

If we ever get invaded, everyone will need to fight, men, women, children of all ages. We are on an island, there is no where to evacuate to. Ask me a year ago, and I would have said there was little to no reason why anyone would want to put boots on our shores, we are too far, and our geography doesn't give a strategic foothold to attack our allies, except maybe NZ, but who sees NZ as a threat?! . But now with plans to obtain first strike capabilities, might be a different story.

Australia being an island is its Achilles' heel.

Australia can be bought to its knees in just 3 weeks, without a single shell, bomb or foreign boot touching our soil.

All a country like China needs to do, is place their subs and warships in the shipping channels in international waters, and threaten to torpedo any ship or oil tanker heading our way.

Nothing will enter Oz.

As we know.... Australia only has 2 - 3 weeks of diesel / petrol supplies in the country at any one time.

No fuel... No food delivered to supermarkets... Everyone starves.

That is why, we are investing billions in a nuclear submarine program.
Future battles won't initially be fought on our shores.

[PhilT2]

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Australia being an island is its Achilles' heel.

Australia can be bought to its knees in just 3 weeks, without a single shell, bomb or foreign boot touching our soil.

All a country like China needs to do, is place their subs and warships in the shipping channels in international waters, and threaten to torpedo any ship or oil tanker heading our way.

Nothing will enter Oz.

As we know.... Australia only has 2 - 3 weeks of diesel / petrol supplies in the country at any one time.

No fuel... No food delivered to supermarkets... Everyone starves.

That is why, we are investing billions in a nuclear submarine program.
Future battles won't initially be fought on our shores.

We still have our own oil wells and refineries don't we? Not enough to meet the needs of everybody but enough to supply basic transport needs. I imagine there would be a big rush to convert over to gas which we have plenty of.
We are also a major food exporter so it's other parts of the world that will starve without Aussie wheat and beef.

Some people believe that the ANZUS treaty means the US would come to our rescue if we were threatened; I'm not that confident of that.

[mad2]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

Russia-Ukraine live news: Alarm grows over Mariupol ‘catastrophe’



image

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...iupol-liveblog

and now we have this blank now fighting for russia from Chechen - Ramzan Kadyrov to make matters worse

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Some people believe that the ANZUS treaty means the US would come to our rescue if we were threatened; I'm not that confident of that.

i'm not if trump/supporters get back in

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

I was just thinking the other day, if we could avoid another all out war for another generation, then we might be saved. From what I see, the next generation around the world have no desire to kill each other, they are more interested in their playstations, twitters, tik toks, tweerks and instagrams. But it doesn't look like we can hold out.

mm

I don’t get this “stupid kids with their fancy Nintendo 64” logic. Back in the good old days did teenagers not have hobbies or interests? Did they just sit around all day everyday thinking about how they can’t wait to be deployed to a war so they can start killing?

Don’t worry the current teens of the world will eventually grow up and some of them will want to kill foreigners to help the elites of their home country gain more power, influence and money.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

I was just thinking the other day, if we could avoid another all out war for another generation, then we might be saved. From what I see, the next generation around the world have no desire to kill each other, they are more interested in their playstations, twitters, tik toks, tweerks and instagrams. But it doesn't look like we can hold out.

Do you ever watch the news these days? young people involved in gang fighting, stabbings & shootings world wide including Australia and you think the next generation is going to be lovely darlings.
Think you need a reality check if this was you envisage of the future generations; the world is decaying into a cesspit.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

......But now with plans to obtain first strike capabilities, might be a different story.

Not sure if serious.....but who is planning to obtain first strike capability?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

Its a little distorted because 18-60 year old males are prevented from evacuating. They are forced to take up arms and fight, there is no choice. I can't imagine an 18 year old kid with no experience in combat, probably has never fired a shot before, being pushed to the front line to face military armed to the teeth. Cannon fodder or human shield sounds about right.

Yes you are correct in saying they are officially prevented from leaving but most are willing to stay and fight instead of fleeing the war.
Have not seen or heard of any reports of any Ukraine citizens complaining they cannot leave their country voluntarily as refuges which again does say something they are willing to fight.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I don’t get this “stupid kids with their fancy Nintendo 64” logic. Back in the good old days did teenagers not have hobbies or interests? Did they just sit around all day everyday thinking about how they can’t wait to be deployed to a war so they can start killing?

Don’t worry the current teens of the world will eventually grow up and some of them will want to kill foreigners to help the elites of their home country gain more power, influence and money.

Playstation reference was being a bit facetious. Come to think of it, COD and BF4 experience might come in handy. Might actually go learn how to fly a drone ....being serious on that one.

Cognitive Warfare becomes very relevant on your second part.

Originally Posted by Itsme

Do you ever watch the news these days? young people involved in gang fighting, stabbings & shootings world wide including Australia and you think the next generation is going to be lovely darlings.
Think you need a reality check if this was you envisage of the future generations; the world is decaying into a cesspit.

Think what we see on news is an extremely small representation of the population, and we only see the extremes. A couple of african gang related fights and all of a sudden the whole of Victoria is too scared to go out to restaurants in the evenings....is that how it goes?

On a serious note, the world is (or was?) much more integrated than it was a generation ago. Kids these days mingle and have friends from different walks of life. There isn't that fear that we had a generation or so ago, generally speaking.

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Not sure if serious.....but who is planning to obtain first strike capability?

I believe recent defence announcements will tell you. But hey, I'm just a AFF armchair observer, so won't second guess the experts, but it will come with consequences.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

I believe recent defence announcements will tell you. But hey, I'm just a AFF armchair observer, so won't second guess the experts, but it will come with consequences.

No need to be an expert, just need to understand what is/has been announced....

Australia is in the process of obtaining Nuclear Powered Submarines, but no Nuclear weapons', we are also in the process of obtaining Tomahawk and new extended range Joint Air-to-Surface Strike Munitions (JASSM) missiles........none of which are classed as "First Strike" capable..

The Tomahawks/JASSM will give Australia the "Long Range Strike ability" that we have not had since the F111 was retired, but they are not "First Strike Capable".

One of the most used definitions of "First Strike Capability" is the ability to use nuclear missiles in an opening attack calculated to destroy the enemy's nuclear weapons.....very rarely does it refer to conventional weapons, which is what we will have available....

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

No need to be an expert, just need to understand what is/has been announced....

Australia is in the process of obtaining Nuclear Powered Submarines, but no Nuclear weapons', we are also in the process of obtaining Tomahawk and new extended range Joint Air-to-Surface Strike Munitions (JASSM) missiles........none of which are classed as "First Strike" capable..

The Tomahawks/JASSM will give Australia the "Long Range Strike ability" that we have not had since the F111 was retired, but they are not "First Strike Capable".

One of the most used definitions of "First Strike Capability" is the ability to use nuclear missiles in an opening attack calculated to destroy the enemy's nuclear weapons.....very rarely does it refer to conventional weapons, which is what we will have available....

Didn't realise the official definition is linked to nuclear weapons only. I caught on to it when I read a piece of analysis around the defence announcements, and what it might mean to us and our neighbours. Can't find it now. It concluded that the reason why our Asia Pac neighbours are so nervous with these announcements, is that it would enable us to perform preemptive strikes first, on any one of them.

I do sincerely hope Nukes are not on our list.

[Mulva]

It's funny how some consider Russia has an advantage as they have more nukes than other nations. Not sure who said it but it stuck with me - it was something like "2 guys in a petrol soaked room, and one of them thinks he has the advantage because he has 500 matches and the other guy only has 400 matches"

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

Didn't realise the official definition is linked to nuclear weapons only. I caught on to it when I read a piece of analysis around the defence announcements, and what it might mean to us and our neighbours. Can't find it now. It concluded that the reason why our Asia Pac neighbours are so nervous with these announcements, is that it would enable us to perform preemptive strikes first, on any one of them.

I do sincerely hope Nukes are not on our list.

I don't think any Australian government has ever considered our military for pre-emptive roles in any past wars, we have taken a defensive role only.
Interestingly we now have taken pre-emptive role in terrorism.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by T3rminator

Didn't realise the official definition is linked to nuclear weapons only. I caught on to it when I read a piece of analysis around the defence announcements, and what it might mean to us and our neighbours. Can't find it now. It concluded that the reason why our Asia Pac neighbours are so nervous with these announcements, is that it would enable us to perform preemptive strikes first, on any one of them.

I do sincerely hope Nukes are not on our list.

If you can sneak in with a submarine and launch any missile on your enemy's bases, including their nuclear bases, then you have first strike capability.

[xkxlxm]

"I don't think any Australian government has ever considered our military for pre-emptive roles in any past wars, we have taken a defensive role only."

I know this is getting off topic again, but so is the above comment. 19 years ago our military was used in a pre-emptive strike on a country which is a long, long way from us and which posed absolutely no threat to us.

Recently I saw a reference to Condoleeza Rice in 2002/2003. Something like "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". I remember the speech. It could have been an address to the UN. She was selling the war on Iraq. We - the West, the 'free world' - had to take a pre-emptive strike against Iraq because it had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Australia, under Howard, could not get there quick enough.

[FairmontGS]

Russia's military is out of its depth in Ukraine. Was Putin kept in the dark about its weaknesses?

Russia's poor military performance over the past two weeks has been one of the great mysteries of the war so far.

Many observers have been perplexed about just how badly the Russian military has performed.

While more analysis is needed, the roots of Russian failure appear to lie in faults of their military transformation program of the past decade.

And, just like most military disasters, the failures in Russian transformation and their Ukraine operations start at the top.

Mick Ryan is a strategist and recently retired Australian Army major general. He served in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a strategist on the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. His first book, War Transformed, is about 21st-century warfare.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-...dark/100908978