0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 22, 2022, 11:55:27 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on December 22, 2022, 10:37:40 pmAnd...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.I discussed that. You simply had a rant about how bad it is for Russia using figures direct from the US which is heavily invested financially and politically. And whose figures don't match what the EU stated before being censored. Bit of the bleeding obvious going on there don't ya think? Simple questions:A)Did Putin expect this to be a simple operation to walk into Kyiv last Feb, eliminate Zelensky and put his own man in power?B) If you're answer to the above is "yes" then this was a disastrous mistake. If it is "no", why did he send in light forces to Kyiv that were easily kicked out?C) Yes or no. Is the resulting war seeing the worst Russian losses since WWII?No obscuring the question with your Russian propaganda about supposed Ukrainian losses. That's irrelevant to the questions above.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on December 22, 2022, 10:37:40 pmAnd...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.I discussed that. You simply had a rant about how bad it is for Russia using figures direct from the US which is heavily invested financially and politically. And whose figures don't match what the EU stated before being censored. Bit of the bleeding obvious going on there don't ya think?
And...you have successfully derailed the discussion that was going on. About this being a war the like of which Russia hasn't been involved in since 1945. It's on a far, far bigger scale than their invasion of Afghanistan. And Putin had assumed it would be closer to the Hungarian put down of 1956.
Kyiv would have been nice too, as would a total Ukraine capitulation.
BBR, it’s Christmas.Do you fancy a kick about in ‘no mans land’?You could stick Bentley Bullet between the posts, his favourite position & Axholme Lion on the far right, his natural position.schastlivogo Rozhdestva.
Hang on a minute.You've been telling us for months that this war was caused by NATO and the EU forcing Putin[1] into an invasion to neutralise Ukraine as a threat to Russia. Surely, that is best achieved by having a Russia-friendly Govt in Kyiv. Which should really have been an easy task if, as you've suggested for months, the Kyiv Govt is an unpopular usurper. Now you are saying that the overthrow of Zelensky would have been a "nice to have" and the real aim was a territory grab.But it's good to see you finally accept what the rest of us have been saying from the start. That's progress.Only...how is it then in the Russian strategic interest to run away from half the land in the south and east that they stole in earlier 2022? Why on earth spend so much time, money, men and materiel trying to seize Kharkiv and Kherson, if you're going to choose to just give them back once you encounter a bit of a fightback? And in giving them back, leave yourself badly exposed to a resumption of Ukranian attacks when the winter has ended?Your position now seems to be:Russia did indeed engage in an illegal land grab as it's war aim in the south and east.Russia has freely given up half the land that it took.Everything is fine and Russia is winning.Regarding Afghanistan, this is really nothing remotely like that war. There the Russians were dealing with a lightly armed insurgency. They lost 15,000 troops killed in 10 years. In Ukraine they are fighting a modern, heavily armed force in what is a small scale equivalent of the World War peer-to-peer fighting. They have had at least 15,000 fatalities in 10 MONTHS.[1] "Putin" not "Russia". If you don't understand the extent to which Putin WAS the Russian Government by Feb 2022, you really should do yourself a favour and stop publicly displaying your ignorance.
But no facts, reasoning or rationale from you Bristol. You are making a habit of it these days. Abuse don't really give your cause much credenceBobH
To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion, in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!)
To walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion, in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!) So, what exactly was the plan? And why isn’t it working?
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 26, 2022, 06:00:10 pmTo walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion, in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!) Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 26, 2022, 06:00:10 pmTo walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion, in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!) So, what exactly was the plan? And why isn’t it working?
Quote from: Filo on December 26, 2022, 06:47:32 pmQuote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 26, 2022, 06:00:10 pmTo walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion, in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!) Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?To still have some territory after the negotiation?
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 27, 2022, 01:43:10 amQuote from: Filo on December 26, 2022, 06:47:32 pmQuote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 26, 2022, 06:00:10 pmTo walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion, in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!) Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?To still have some territory after the negotiation? Why would a Sovereign Country want to negotiate giving up territory to an aggressor?
BRR.You've told us all year that Putin's War was an essentially defensive operation which he was forced into because of the threat of Ukraine becoming Westernised.Now you're regularly saying that Putin's aim has been to grab territory from Ukraine. And that he's winning in that War.Which one is it? It can't be both. Because if Putin doesn't destroy Ukraine as a functioning state, his invasion had guaranteed that the majority of Ukraine will be Western-looking for the test of the century. And do stop this b*llocks about Ukrainian people being split 50/50 between West and Russian supporting blocs. You know the numbers were nothing like that, even before Putin invaded and tried to destroy the civilian infrastructure of the country (which is scarcely going to endear him is it - Dear Russia lovers: I will seal our relationship by destroying your electricity supply in the depth of winter. Love. Vlad.)
BRR.You've told us all year that Putin's War was an essentially defensive operation which he was forced into because of the threat of Ukraine becoming Westernised.Now you're regularly saying that Putin's aim has been to grab territory from Ukraine. And that he's winning in that War.Which one is it? It can't be both. Because if Putin doesn't destroy Ukraine as a functioning state, his invasion had guaranteed that the majority of Ukraine will be Western-looking for the test of the century. And do stop this b*llocks about Ukrainian people being split 50/50 between West and Russian supporting blocs. You know the numbers were nothing like that, even before Putin invaded and tried to destroy the civilian infrastructure of the country (which is scarcely going to endear him is it - Dear Russia lovers: I will seal our relationship by destroying your electricity supply in the depth of winter. Love. Vlad.)
Quote from: Filo on December 27, 2022, 05:08:16 amQuote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 27, 2022, 01:43:10 amQuote from: Filo on December 26, 2022, 06:47:32 pmQuote from: Bristol Red Rover on December 26, 2022, 06:00:10 pmTo walk into Ukraine and take over the gov in Kiev wouldn't have neutralised Ukraine Military. You know the country is approx 50/50 pro Western Pro Russian, and in Kyiv more pro Western than in the east. Then holding down a population that is more resistant takes a lot of resources.The land gained in the south and east was all the basic needed, for Crimea and Donbas.Ukraine could have negotiated before the invasion, in fact were doing, tho Johnson stuck his foot in that door, on behalf of the Yanks.... and you know that story.So having taking that initial territory, the object is to destroy Ukraine military.Your idea of taking Kyiv first ain't a good one, wasn't the plan for good reason. Or maybe you can explain how that would work? (a BST reply on track would be novel!) Why would a sovereign Country want to negotiate loss of territory to an aggressor?To still have some territory after the negotiation? Why would a Sovereign Country want to negotiate giving up territory to an aggressor?To have some territory left after negotiation. As its going, quite possibly they'd have none.
Why would they have none given the Russians are struggling to hold on to Territory?
Quote from: Filo Why would they have none given the Russians are struggling to hold on to Territory? Where's your info from? For some weeks, the North and South has been stable, the east has seen consistent Russian gains.