*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even generals in other countries are scratching their heads. The first thing he should have done if he wanted to blitzkreig Ukraine is establish air supremacy. That makes the land war so much easier. He had the planes to do it. Instead he barely committed enough to contest the U air force.

Not had, but has.

It's been 2 weeks and he still hasn't done it.

WTF is that?

[OngBonga]

Try not to ignore the differences just because everyone else is ignoring the similarities.

This is a really good comment, and something I'll try to take on board.

Your proposed alternative to just ignore this and let Ukraine or parts of Ukraine fall to a terrible tyrant who rules with lies and oppression is just untenable. Not simply to me, but to the vast majority of countries.

The things is, my proposal is to let him have Donbas and Crimea. The people of these regions are culturally Russian, not Ukrainian. It's not like I'm suggesting we let him take regions where only outright oppression will keep them in tow. Russia most certainly should not be allowed to take Kyiv, not as long term territory at least. Ok in war cities get captured, but that's to force capitulation, if Russia take Kyiv it should definitely be returned upon their surrender.

I realise that the people of Crimea haven't always been pro-Russian, but that doesn't change the fact that right now, they are people and Crimea is their home. It's impossible to do right in these situations. I mean, should we give the Falklands to Argentina? Of course not, the people there don't want that to happen. Why should we ignore them and cave into the political demands of people who don't live there? That doesn't change the fact that the Falklands is a colony and perhaps we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But it's now, not then.

[Poopadoop]

Not had, but has.

It's been 2 weeks and he still hasn't done it.

WTF is that?

Maybe he knew the price of gas was going up and wanted to save money.

[OngBonga]

Both Poland and Ukraine geographically have been contested so many time over the centuries that I'd say it's pretty hard for anyone to call dibs. Slavs have inhabited Poland periodically since 450BC and Ukraine since 600somethingBC. Go back enough, and no country can claim any piece of land their "own", it's always just what current consensus says. Russia has/had no legitimate claim on Crimea or Donbas.

I agree with all this except the last sentence. Russia totally have a legitimate claim on these regions. The people want it. We can argue about where these people should have self determination or not, but I firmly believe they should. They are culturally different to the people they share a country with. They want to be part of a country they are culturally closer to. Who are we to say they can't have that? Ukraine was never going to let them have a referendum, and in the case of Crimea, where Russia basically took it without going to war, I can get behind that. Granted, it started a war in the east, perhaps Russia should just have occupied these regions at the same time in the hope it prevents a future war.

Hm has Canada? I don't recall. Anyhoo, I for one strongly condemn (and have done so for decades) what the Israeli are doing. Stop the whataboutism.

I mean people seem to say "whataboutism" in an attempt to not discuss the awkward truths. How we behave on the world stage has relevance. And how we morally respond to world events should be related to our own behaviour. We can't ignore the Iraq and Syria situations. They are relevant. Especially Syria, since it was Putin who basically came along and stopped us doing the same to Syria what we did to Iraq and Libya... get their leaders killed.

I read somewhere that when Putin saw footage of Gadaffi being assraped by a gun after the French captured him, he was actually shocked. Imagine shocking a man like Putin, a former KGB mafia thug. This was Western regime change in action. And the West dare to take moral high ground in geopolitical affairs.

And now we're arming crucifiers in an attempt to stop him from claiming land occupied by Russian speaking people.

This is why I can't take sides when it comes to Russia vs the West. We're both as bad as each other. We just go about things differently. Both sides are ruled by psychopaths. And frankly I feel like Putin is the more intelligent out of the world leaders of great powers. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

What moves exactly have you seen NATO make to achieve these goals?

Watch that video mojo linked above. NATO have acted in bad faith when it comes to Russia.

Politicians aren't a different breed, they're just people.

Maybe in Finland those in power are just normal people who want to live in a world of happiness and peace. Stay out of NATO for your own sanity, because the company you'll be keeping is psychopaths.

[OngBonga]

I mean I don't really want to get in a debate with a guy who doesn't know who fought on which side when in most wars...

I mean I don't even know what you're getting at here, but you're right, I'm not a historian.

I also know about 70% of it is tundra and frozen forests. You don't win a war by holding onto tundra.

This is exactly how to win a war if it's the only option you have left. And if there's any people on the planet more capable of living in frozen forests and tundra, it's the Russians. It's pretty much how they won the 1812 war with France. The Russians will outlast any occupiers in such conditions. And they'll nuke their own cities if they have to.

If the Russians retreat to the tundra, they'll survive, bank it.

Germany came close to taking the USSR's three biggest cities in WWII. They seiged Leningrad for three years, they got to the outskirts of Moscow, they occupied 90% of Stalingrand.

You're not going to win a war against Russia taking their cities. All you can do is get bogged down into an occupation that is slowly going to kill your men. Eventually you have to retreat, and the Russians emerge from the frozen forest. This is what having such a large and inhospitable country can do for you. This is why Russia will never be defeated. They can only be subdued for a period of time.

Japan was the second greatest naval power in WWII after the USA,

Nonsense. At the start of the war, the Royal Navy was the greatest naval power in the world. By the end of the war, it was the Americans. The Japanese were always a distant third. This is a matter of fact, based on the size of the navies in question In terms of merchant tonnage, our navy was five times bigger than Japan's. Five.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...f_World_War_II

[Insert list of mountainous countries Germany rolled over in days in WWII.]

Like Switzerland, right?

Every country has mountains, even we have them. The difference with countries like France and Japan is that France's mountains aren't quite as strategic. Japan's mountains cover, I believe, 70% on the land area. Maybe that's just Honshu, not sure. Oh, and they're also an island, unlike mainland Europe.

Hitler didn't take the one large country in Europe that is so well protected by mountains that it's practically impossible to occupy. He didn't need to of course, they were neutral, but he took neutral Belgium because he needed it to get to France.

And that's because the mountains of France did protect them from invasion from the south. The way to invade France is through Belgium, the flatlands.

Mountains are important.

What is a "crucifiction"

Thanks for the spelling correction.

But you're saying we shouldn't try to defend those interests "because nazis."

Well actually I'm saying let's not pretend we have moral high ground. We're playing the same game they are.

I didn't even think he would invade because he only had a fraction of his army on their border. He did anyways. It hasn't gone well, and either he should have known that but is crazy, or he did know that and doesn't care.

I agree with you here. I was surprised he attempted an invasion with the troops he had, and it certainly doesn't look to me like it's going to plan. Not sure why. My best guess is the Russian fighters aren't as motivated as the Ukrainians. Or maybe they're just ballsing it right up. I read somewhere, citation needed, that the Russians blew up a 5G tower, which killed their own communications. But I've also read opinions that think Putin is deliberately holding back because he hoped to win it with minimal bloodshed. Who knows why Russia are failing. I'm sure they're capable of much more.

I have. The amount i spend on gas has gone from £60 to £70 a fill. I may have to sell my house.

Next time it'll probably be £80.

This time next year it could be £250.

How long is this going to go on for? And even when it ends, how long do the Russian sanctions go on for? The longer it goes on, the worse it is for everyone.

You're the only person I know who sees a moral equivalence between an invading army and one that has some assholes in it.

I'm of the opinion that arming and training revolutionists in foreign countries is morally comparable to invading that country, especially when those revolutionists are jihadists and Nazis.

[Poopadoop]

This is exactly how to win a war if it's the only option you have left. And if there's any people on the planet more capable of living in frozen forests and tundra, it's the Russians. It's pretty much how they won the 1812 war with France. The Russians will outlast any occupiers in such conditions. And they'll nuke their own cities if they have to.

If the Russians retreat to the tundra, they'll survive, bank it.

You're not going to win a war against Russia taking their cities. All you can do is get bogged down into an occupation that is slowly going to kill your men. Eventually you have to retreat, and the Russians emerge from the frozen forest. This is what having such a large and inhospitable country can do for you. This is why Russia will never be defeated. They can only be subdued for a period of time.

Ok thanks for that expert analysis.

Nonsense. At the start of the war, the Royal Navy was the greatest naval power in the world. By the end of the war, it was the Americans. The Japanese were always a distant third. This is a matter of fact, based on the size of the navies in question In terms of merchant tonnage, our navy was five times bigger than Japan's. Five.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...f_World_War_II

Battleships, cruisers and destroyers were basically useless by WWII. A merchant marine isn't part of your battle fleet, so if we're talking about naval power, they're irrelevant.

Aircraft carriers ruled the waves. Japan had more and better aircraft carriers than the UK in WWII, until the US Navy sunk them all.

Like Switzerland, right?

Picks a name of a country that didn't fight in WWII. Well played sir.

Like Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway.

Well actually I'm saying let's not pretend we have moral high ground. We're playing the same game they are.

No, you've been saying you have a problem with helping Ukraine because some people in their army are bad people. Not the same as what you say here.

Next time it'll probably be £80.

This time next year it could be £250.

How long is this going to go on for? And even when it ends, how long do the Russian sanctions go on for? The longer it goes on, the worse it is for everyone.

So when we impose economic sanctions on ourselves you're not worried about it, but when we impose them on Russia you think it's going to ruin our economy?

I'm of the opinion that arming and training revolutionists in foreign countries is morally comparable to invading that country, especially when those revolutionists are jihadists and Nazis.

So you ARE saying you have a problem with helping Ukraine. I thought that's what I read before.

[Keith]

Like Switzerland, right?

Every country has mountains, even we have them. The difference with countries like France and Japan is that France's mountains aren't quite as strategic. Japan's mountains cover, I believe, 70% on the land area. Maybe that's just Honshu, not sure. Oh, and they're also an island, unlike mainland Europe.

Hitler didn't take the one large country in Europe that is so well protected by mountains that it's practically impossible to occupy. He didn't need to of course, they were neutral, but he took neutral Belgium because he needed it to get to France.

And that's because the mountains of France did protect them from invasion from the south. The way to invade France is through Belgium, the flatlands.

Mountains are important.

Thats not strictly true , HItler didnt invade france through Belgium because it was flat and mountains were protecting the french german border. After WW1 france protected that border with with the Maginot line which was a fortified construction.Hitler simply drove round it through Belgium rather than assaulting fortifications and losing men and equipment.