GoldstoneVintage
Well-known member
Agreed. So far, so sensible for the new German Chancellor. Hope he gives Ukraine Taurus missiles.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
Agreed. So far, so sensible for the new German Chancellor. Hope he gives Ukraine Taurus missiles.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,059
I'm pretty sure he's a good guy. I seem to remember him clashing with Scholz, arguing to arm Ukraine more, and giving them free rein with the weapons.
armchairclubber
Well-known member
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,059
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,010
I don’t profess to know anything about modern warfare, I do know for a fact though, simply because Russia is occupying parts of Ukraine that a) Ukraine is not winning the war and b) the Russia military isn’t shit.
Perhaps you know more than this report referenced by the NY times on data produced for US Congress, which indicates
a) whilst Russian casualties are significantly more than Ukraine, losses for Ukraine are 70k dead and 230k wounded although it remains a best guess.
b) Russia resisted a Ukrainian counter offensive which was with western trained units and with western equipment.
c) Ukrainian losses have potentially made Ukraine casualty adverse.
Not that long ago someone said of Russia, you only need to kick the door in and the whole structure will collapse…………quite.
Conversely, as Ukraine is occupying parts of Russia, then Russia is not winning this war.
It is ASTONISHINGLY good fortune, decent voters turning out... thank you Germany
.May sound odd, but Europe NEEDS strong leadership from Germany now, to help Ukraine and Europe: taurus, Rheinmetall, industrial base, large economy...and Merz is clearly going to push back against the US.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
In terms of your argument regards Russian capability you are very wrong. It is shit! The use of prisoner, North Koreans and wounded troops would say as much. The push into Kursk was designed to throw a military spanner into the works. Ukraine are in this case the invader ( ironic is it not) and Russia has not been able to kick them out, which says much.
Russia did resist the counter offensive, obviously not the Kursk one as Ukraine is still there, but it was only partially successful. It basically took out much of the Korean involvement, tied up resources they don’t have. The fact that it uses western kit is a bonus and they’ll improve with time.
i‘m not sure you know anything other than thinking that the Russian army is made up of supermen.
Last edited:
- Jan 25, 2025
- 192
So when the USSR wiped out the German 6th Army at Stalingrad and later smashed the panzers at Kursk, it was still losing the war because those things happened on its own territory?
What you are saying is “for a fact” is actually “interpretation“. Other interpretations are available.
You need to employ more critical thinking.
In war, territory is secondary. The goal of an army is to reduce and destroy the combat capability of its opponent. A defending army will cede territory to maintain its ability to continue fighting. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily losing, if the attacking army is taking heavy losses and a high rate of attrition.
The more territory an attacking army captures, the more it is stretched - supplies must be transported over greater distances, occupied territory must be governed. As its ability reduces, it becomes vulnerable to counter offensive, at which point the roles can reverse. Good examples of this are the battles in North Africa in 1941-1943 and the Korean War in the 1950s.
A feature of this conflict has been its relatively static nature - shades of trench warfare in France in WWI. Then, Germany occupied most of Belgium and a big chunk of France for four years. Obviously, it lost the war. That defeat wasn’t on the battlefield, it was because Germany’s economy became so damaged that it collapsed politically - partly through the impact of the blockade that was imposed on it.
This is the scenario we have in Ukraine. The longer it holds out, even by gradually ceding territory, the more likely it is that sanctions on Russia can do their work. The significantly higher casualties Russia is suffering are testament to the higher attrition it is suffering. Neither side is definitively winning the war in the field, which is worse for Russia the longer this continues.
Last edited:
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,010
So, re Russian ability to fight and prosecute the war, a report from Congress feels reasonable, definitely not rosy for Russia, but they are not on the brink of collapse.
If we take your assumption of 5 dead pw overall with wounded it’s 30 pw. Plus, if you could indulge my ignorance on warfare, a war in Vietnam and its environment between a conventional army fighting a guerrilla insurgency is light years away from a two more conventional armies fighting across open territory.
That’s what we dealing with in Ukraine and therefore the rate of losses will be from destruction of vehicles and the degradation of military units is likely to mean a higher rate than 5 dead and 25 wounded per week. Even if it’s just double what you think and 10 dead 50 wounded per week that rate will build, notwithstanding the likelihood say we lose a ship and its immediately 100+
Either way, we agree this country does not have the stomach for a brutal losses for a war it does not have to fight. As I have maintained, I don’t doubt the British public overwhelmingly back Ukraine, that backing however is not without thresholds, and the costs in increasing financial aid will diminish that support as it would in blood, as many (whether you agree or not) do not see Ukraine as a fight we have to engage our troops in.
Which brings us to Gen Z, and splitting hairs. The polling indicates there would be problems in generating support from them to fight the U.K. for any cause and for the U.K. generally. What is clear, when it comes to war, and a brutal one at that we “socially” are not close to either Ukraine or Russia. We need politicians that understand all of that.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,010
So what I think you are saying is France beat Germany in 1940.
- Jan 25, 2025
- 192
Now you’re just being facetious
Although I can still make a point to you on this - Germany succeeded in its goal to destroy the operational effectiveness of the Allied field armies in 1940. You are, for once, correct in your sarcastic interpretation.
Germany still lost the war.
Last edited:
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Not sure where we start with this.
Ukraine is holding its own and the 30Billion euro’s of military aid is going to make a Russia have sleepless nights. Not sure what your point is with Vietnam war but this war is far from conventional and i would argue is more kit based than any previous war. Drones being the weapon of choice and it appears that Ukraine is the largest manufacturer of drones in the world at the moment. if we are talking conventional warfare then the war shouldn’t have lasted more than three/four days.So why was that? Well let’s start with very poor leadership, appallingly maintained kit, the kit they do have is of poor design, very unmotivated army, and air force scared to leave Russian air space. So in summary, a clusterfuck of an invasion.
Gen Z has nothing to do with it as we haven’t got boots on the ground and are unlikely to to have in any number. For Russia to get to the UK it’s going to have to go through Europe and guess what they can’t get through Ukraine.
The real issue you have is that GenZ aren’t overly impressed with the UK at the moment and in particular with the older population. There was a post early that explained it in great detail. Let’s face it who’d want to put their arse on the line for someone like you? Just saying like.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,010
No I don’t think the Russian Army is supermen, I do think they are on top in Ukraine and are not to be under estimated.
They have form, and you can crib that form however it exists. The western countries we are part of and our armies do not have form.
Pointing that out is no being pro Russian, perhaps you are right and our untested military forces can make short shrift of the Russians.
I would however be looking at the Ukrainians who also have form, and have suffered eye watering casualties in exchanges with the Russians despite possessing western equipment.
The point being, Ukraine has the will to fight, they are unified and have the stomach for it as it’s their territory they are fighting over from an aggressor. They have been engaged in that struggle admirably for 3 years and have been trained and equipped by the west.
If the Russians were shit the Ukrainians should be in Moscow, or at least back to 2022 borders. Maybe it’s simply because I’m a military dunce but the current status of the war is not pointing to the Ukrainian’s prevailing.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Christ on a bike.
in one paragraph please explain the similarities of Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine and France 1940’s. Hint: There aren’t any of any note but away you.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Neither does it show a Russian victory and as the aggressor they are losing.
Why would Ukraine want to go to Moscow? At the moment out the occupied territory in Ukraine has the highest concentration of man and kit in the world. Ukraine Western support has only been in the last 12 months or so and we can see that taking large areas of kursk is a result of this, and yes you are a military dunce.
- Jan 25, 2025
- 192
Here is where I agree with you - European forces are not match fit. If they went up against Russian forces tomorrow, we can’t be sure how they’d fare. Fortunately, that’s not the situation, but Europe has no choice but to start taking that possibility seriously.
The same applied to Ukraine three years ago. They did enough to keep themselves in the fight.
Russian eyes are watering more. No country can sustain high attrition indefinitely.
No arguments on this.
No, it’s because you’re only considering the territorial situation and not the bigger picture, which includes Russia’s economic and domestic political situation.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,010
True, I was, but that history, this is the present and there are no guarantees Ukraine will prevail. At this very moment I would say it’s even less likely.Now you’re just being facetious
Although I can still make a point to you on this - Germany succeeded in its goal to destroy the operational effectiveness of the Allied field armies in 1940. You are, for once, correct in your sarcastic interpretation.
Germany still lost the war.
At the risk of denigrating the sacrifice paid by GB, we needed American money and industrial heft to get the job done then, not forgetting the millions of casualties suffered by Russia.
If we think that WW2 left a legacy in the way this country was post WW2 so it did in Russia. I think we have largely moved on hence the Gen Z issue, I don’t think that’s the case with the Russian mentality.
The fact they have absorbed casualties in hundreds of thousands suggests it hasn’t which should be a red flag for countries seeking to get entangled with it militarily.
From the Washington Post...the Trump agenda continues:
"The Trump administration has asked Ukraine to withdraw an annual resolution condemning Russia’s war, and wants to replace it with a toned-down U.S. statement that was perceived as being close to pro-Russian in Kyiv, according to an official and three European diplomats familiar with the plan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive political situation between nations that have typically acted as partners. The suggestion stunned Kyiv, which refused to withdraw its resolution, which is set to be released on the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale anniversary on Monday, The Post reports. "
"The Trump administration has asked Ukraine to withdraw an annual resolution condemning Russia’s war, and wants to replace it with a toned-down U.S. statement that was perceived as being close to pro-Russian in Kyiv, according to an official and three European diplomats familiar with the plan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive political situation between nations that have typically acted as partners. The suggestion stunned Kyiv, which refused to withdraw its resolution, which is set to be released on the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale anniversary on Monday, The Post reports. "
- Jan 25, 2025
- 192
I don’t think any country should be racing to the battlefield, but I think it would be monumentally stupid to assume the battlefield won’t come to us, in a metaphorical sense.
Reputable figures were saying we have moved from a post-war to a pre-war world long before Trump got back in.
Now we face the possibility of Trump actively supporting Russia. This is a scary prospect.
If the worst happens, with the greatest respect to the members of Gen-Z, their feelings won’t matter very much in the grand scheme of things.
I have a question for you: if you were president of Europe, what would you do in the current circumstances?