Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:02Pilot said:Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:Iraq comes to mind...
It is clear we do not share a definition of "stability".
Actually, I was intending to mention Iraq post Saddam as supporting your position. I should have elaborated.
Ah, I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.
aircooled said:tuna55 said:The blaming of WWII on the treaty is a Nazi lie.
So... they are saying reparation did not create the rise of the Nazi party in Germany because they really where not that harsh, and Germany had other issues that were worse...
...and also, Hitler used reparation as a primary issue and way to rise to power (by basically mis-representing the issues).
So... how where reparations not a significant part of the rise of Nazi's again?
Keep in mind Russia is VERY good at spinning things to make themselves the victims and have a very strong hold of the narrative inside Russia. I would honestly expect some of the spin to start pretty soon. Some sort Nazi / NATO /western conspiracy to deprive the glorious Russian people of there precious bodily fluids maybe (I really need to watch Dr. Strangelove again...)
To be fair: The point could be made that Hitler could have used almost anything that could be considered a slight on Germany as a justification, but that only makes the care that O2 is talking about even more critical.
I think the point is buried within what you said here. Hitler did indeed propagate the theory, but I could rattle off examples from the previous administration, but would find a lovely concrete patio awaiting me, to show that just because a leader claims victimhood for a number of reasons that might seem plausible to their base, especially if said base is unhinged in terms of the cult of personality they are following, does not make said claim true.
Just because Hitler said the treaty was a major driver to WWII doesn't mean that it was, in fact, that actually makes it less plausible.
02Pilot said:tuna55 said:The blaming of WWII on the treaty is a Nazi lie.
Blaming, at least in part, NATO expansion for Russian aggression is a ridiculous idea. If not for NATO, Russia would only be -more- aggressive.
I'm not sure what the qualifications of "Time Ghost" are, but I looked them up and can't find any record of any academic work. That video very quickly describes events, but offers zero evidence to back any assertions. By contrast, there is extensive academic literature that links the rise of the NSDAP with aspects of the Treaty of Versailles, particularly Article 231, the so-called War Guilt Clause, which is not mentioned at all.
Similarly, stating that Russia would be more aggressive but for NATO expansion is not a provable assertion. You may believe it to be true, but there is no evidence supporting it; it is difficult to prove something that did not happen. There is evidence, including statements from Putin himself, that NATO expansion was viewed as a threat and would be actively opposed.
Getting your history from YouTube is like getting your car repair information from YouTube. It's not all bad, but a lot of it is. History and international relations have their Scotty Kilmers too.
I do not count academic literature as proof. I had academic literature growing up telling me that different parts of my tongue were for tasting different things, and that I should have 6-10 carb servings per day. The evidence is on the side of their claim. Indy has a history undergrad degree. I am not sure what educational bona fides you require, but frankly I do not care.
Sure, I cannot prove that without NATO expansion, Russia would be more aggressive. And you cannot prove the opposite. So we are at an impasse, hopelessly disagreeing. I gather you are a real teacher? All I can do is be thankful my children are not in your class!
I don't "get my history from YoutTube", I just presented that as an easily sharable summary. This, by the way, is far better and less demeaning than just telling me that there is "extensive academic literature" which agrees with you. A year or so ago I saw Alex Jones "quote" verifiable medical studies (yes I quoted the word quote intentionally) proving the covid vaccine was going to give everyone mental decline and plaque (??) in their brain within twelve months.
In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :
My apologies
Regarding Germany / Russia / NATO etc: Let's just say finding "reasons" for historical actions will always be at least a bit of an over-simplification, and people do tend to prefer simple answer. Most of the "reasons" that are found are generally more of a tipping point anyway and the true picture is usually very complicated and will be difficult to relate to unless you experienced it yourself.
Anyhoooo.... more stuff. It's really looking like a bit of a partial Russian break down at least.
It's looking like the Ukrainians have identified the weak point of the Russian army as logistics and command and control and are proverbially "sweeping the leg" (injured leg, for those not getting the reference).
Another interesting thing that seems to be happening is that when the Russians attack a village / town / city they are in for a fight that costs them. When the Ukrainians re-take that village, the Russian bolt or surrender. This of course heavily speaks to moral and will to fight and is not really surprising.
At this point, it looks like the Russians are a bit on their heels, and re-adjusting is a huge problem. There seems to be a couple of possibilities for a Ukrainian "nut kick", but do they have the resources, or would it be an over extension?
I am also a bit curious, and back to the original topic, that the Russians did not see the Kharkiv offensive coming. Did they not see the build up? Or was it, as I suspect, not much of a build up, but more of an indication of the very poor fighting form of the Russians (at least in that area).
In general, I would have to say, I am rather impressed at the Ukrainians ability to make the right moves, with the (seemingly) least amount of effort. I suspect some of this is the result of what is likely a lot of cooperation with western resources. And back to the OP again, this is history that will be discussed and revealed into the future, and it will be very interesting to see that happen.
- Ukrainian forces are continuing to make impactful gains in Kherson Oblast and are steadily degrading the morale and combat capabilities of Russian forces in this area.
- The Russian military command may be suspending the deployment of newly formed units to Ukraine due to recent Russian losses and overall degraded morale.
- Russian forces are failing to reinforce the new frontline following Ukrainian gains in eastern Kharkiv Oblast and are actively fleeing the area or redeploying to other axes.
- Ukrainian forces continued targeting Russian military assets and positions in Kherson Oblast, likely steadily degrading them.
- The Ukrainian recapture of Izyum has likely degraded Russian forces’ ability to conduct artillery strikes along the Izyum-Slovyansk highway.
- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced the restoration of the second reserve power transmission line to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP).
- Ukraine’s sweeping counteroffensive is damaging Russian administrative capabilities and driving Russian departures from occupied parts of Ukraine far behind the line of contact.
Ukraine’s southern counteroffensive is continuing to have significant impacts on Russian morale and military capabilities in southern Ukraine. Satellite imagery of known Russian positions in Kyselivka, 15km northwest of Kherson City, shows that all but four Russian vehicles have departed from previous forward positions, consistent with rumors that Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) troops have abandoned Kyselivka and moved back towards the Dnipro River.[1] Kyselivka is an operationally significant location for Russian forces around Kherson City because it is the last major settlement along both the E58 highway and a railway line between current Ukrainian positions and Chornobaivka, the outermost part of Kherson City. The apparent withdrawal of Russian troops from this position may compromise the Russians’ ability to defend the northwestern outskirts of Kherson City and suggests that Russian troops in this area perceive an imminent threat to their positions. Spokesperson for Ukraine’s Southern Operational Command, Natalya Humenyuk, stated on September 12 that Russian forces located along the right bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast are attempting to negotiate for surrender under the auspices of international law.[2] Ukrainian operations in Kharkiv Oblast are unlikely to have had such a dramatic psychological effect on Russian troops this far south, and both the withdrawal of troops from forward positions in Kyselivka and reports of surrender negotiations are indicators that Ukrainian counteroffensives in the south are progressing in a significant way, even if visibility on this axis is limited by the shift in focus to Kharkiv.
The success of recent Ukrainian counteroffensive operations may be impacting the will or ability of the Russian military command to use newly formed volunteer units in Ukraine in a timely fashion. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that the Russian military command has suspended sending new, already-formed units to Ukraine due to recent Russian losses and widespread distrust of the Russian military command, factors which have caused a large number of volunteers to categorically refuse to participate in combat.[3] This assessment is still unconfirmed, but low morale due to Ukrainian counteroffensive success may prove devastating to the Kremlin’s already-poor ability to generate meaningful combat capability. The deployment of these newly formed units to reinforce defensive lines against Ukrainian counteroffensives would be an operationally-sound decision on the part of Russian military leadership; and the delay or potential suspension of these deployments will afford Ukrainian troops time to consolidate and then resume the offensive, should they choose to do so, without having to face newly arrived and fresh (albeit undertrained and understrength) units.
In reply to aircooled :
I read that we participated heavily in some wargames and highly encouraged a northern offense and didn't believe a souther Mariupol offense would work. Perhaps this is true. If so, I hope it is continued and not an overextension. I'd love to see Odessa and Mariupol back in Ukrainian hands this week. Hopefully on to Crimea and they can undo 2014 losses in future months. Things like the Iranian drone shot down, and that they don't seem to work, and the Russian jet that just crashed on takeoff seemingly due to pilot error seem to speak to Russian collapse on the battlefield.
And a bit more more on the Kherson (western) front (my bolding):
Ukraine’s sweeping counteroffensive is damaging Russian administrative capabilities and driving Russian departures from occupied parts of Ukraine far behind the line of contact. The Ukrainian Resistance Center reported on September 12 that Russian forces throughout occupied Kherson Oblast have restricted general freedom of movement, strengthened military checkpoints, and increased looting, particularly of motorcycles—all apparent signs of Russian desperation.[34] Russian forces may be looting mopeds and motorcycles to flee in the event of a military collapse. The Russian-backed head of occupied Crimea, Sergey Aksenov, claimed on September 12 that Russian FSB officers detained Ukrainian “terrorists” who were planning an attack on the Kherson Occupation Administration.[35] The Ukrainian Resistance Center also reported that Russian forces increased patrols and checkpoints around Mariupol on September 12 to thwart Ukrainian “sabotage.”[36]
Noddaz said:Ukraine shoots down drone made by Iran
Am I the only one who thinks that picture looks "off" somehow?
tuna55 said:In reply to aircooled :
I read that we participated heavily in some wargames and highly encouraged a northern offense and didn't believe a souther Mariupol offense would work. Perhaps this is true. If so, I hope it is continued and not an overextension. I'd love to see Odessa and Mariupol back in Ukrainian hands this week. Hopefully on to Crimea and they can undo 2014 losses in future months. Things like the Iranian drone shot down, and that they don't seem to work, and the Russian jet that just crashed on takeoff seemingly due to pilot error seem to speak to Russian collapse on the battlefield.
Odessa was never taken by the Russians.
The picture is out of focus, or is focusing on something I cannot figure out. I am not sure that screams fake, but could always be a double cross "hey, who would ever fake an out of focus shot" kind of thing. It's good to be a bit suspicious though.
And yes, Odessa (major western Sea of Azov port) has been under threat, but never taken by the Russians. I suspect he is more talking about Meriupol (major grain shipping port) and Sevastopol (major naval base). Basically the southern Sea of Azov cities.
And yes, the names of these cities is a constant source of difficulty for me also. Even if I know the name, spelling them can be a challenge!
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:tuna55 said:In reply to aircooled :
I read that we participated heavily in some wargames and highly encouraged a northern offense and didn't believe a souther Mariupol offense would work. Perhaps this is true. If so, I hope it is continued and not an overextension. I'd love to see Odessa and Mariupol back in Ukrainian hands this week. Hopefully on to Crimea and they can undo 2014 losses in future months. Things like the Iranian drone shot down, and that they don't seem to work, and the Russian jet that just crashed on takeoff seemingly due to pilot error seem to speak to Russian collapse on the battlefield.
Odessa was never taken by the Russians.
Oops, I know it was attacked and blockaded, I had wrongly concluded that it was taken. Thanks for the correction.
Margarita Simonyan
Chief Editor, MIA Rossiya Segodnya
“We do not allow ourselves to carpet bomb Ukrainian cities. Why? Because we couldn’t? We could have, easily. I am proud that we don’t allow ourselves that.”
-------------------------------------------
I guess if you have to be proud of something. Sourced from Polygraph, is it a reliable information site?
Scott
I think there are probably a few reason Russia won't attempt to go full tilt on Ukraine.
1) It would be embarrassing if your entire fleet of bombers got shot down.
2) Doing so with long range weapons would likely result in retaliation across the border.
3) It wouldn't exactly further the goals of integrating a "liberated" Ukraine into the Russian Federation. There would be nothing left to integrate.
I actually think the former is more likely. Russia just wants the wasteland barrier between it and NATO so that migrants leaving Russia think western Europe is terrible.
Considering the airpower loses so far and their inability to gain control of the airspace, I think there is a real possibility that any attempts at conventional bombing runs would end badly, and doing so with expensive long range weapons could result in Ukraine firing back across the border.
In reply to pheller :
Agreed, can you imagine if they loaded their bombers with nuclear weapons and none of them reached their targets anyway? We've seen the vaunted S400 and S300 systems fail time and time again, it would not be a shock.
On another subject, can anyone verify this? This sounds very promising if real.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/09/13/ukraine-produces-draft-agreement-on-security-guarantees-urges-allies-to-maintain-sanctions-against-russia
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/858525.html
This reporting sounds a bit more muted, but still stronger than I expected.
pheller said:I think there are probably a few reason Russia won't attempt to go full tilt on Ukraine.
1) It would be embarrassing if your entire fleet of bombers got shot down.
2) Doing so with long range weapons would likely result in retaliation across the border.
3) It wouldn't exactly further the goals of integrating a "liberated" Ukraine into the Russian Federation. There would be nothing left to integrate.
I actually think the former is more likely. Russia just wants the wasteland barrier between it and NATO so that migrants leaving Russia think western Europe is terrible.
Considering the airpower loses so far and their inability to gain control of the airspace, I think there is a real possibility that any attempts at conventional bombing runs would end badly, and doing so with expensive long range weapons could result in Ukraine firing back across the border.
NATO has made it clear, that any nuclear escalation even to just fallout over a member state is an Article 5 activator.
GIRTHQUAKE said:pheller said:I think there are probably a few reason Russia won't attempt to go full tilt on Ukraine.
1) It would be embarrassing if your entire fleet of bombers got shot down.
2) Doing so with long range weapons would likely result in retaliation across the border.
3) It wouldn't exactly further the goals of integrating a "liberated" Ukraine into the Russian Federation. There would be nothing left to integrate.
I actually think the former is more likely. Russia just wants the wasteland barrier between it and NATO so that migrants leaving Russia think western Europe is terrible.
Considering the airpower loses so far and their inability to gain control of the airspace, I think there is a real possibility that any attempts at conventional bombing runs would end badly, and doing so with expensive long range weapons could result in Ukraine firing back across the border.
NATO has made it clear, that any nuclear escalation even to just fallout over a member state is an Article 5 activator.
I had not seen that, can you show me? That's good news, I just missed it.
z31maniac said:Noddaz said:Ukraine shoots down drone made by Iran
Am I the only one who thinks that picture looks "off" somehow?
It is from the internet. If it looks off, it probably is.
An interesting bit of internal strife. This is in St.Petersburg, so not national, but also Putins home town and where he came to power (pretty sure).
I suspect many of the council members will fall sick, be put in the hospital, then accidently climb to the 5th floor and fall out a window...
Russian council faces dissolution after call for Putin's removal
Last week, a group of deputies from the council appealed to the State Duma to bring charges of state treason against Putin and strip him of power, citing a series of reasons including Russia's military losses in Ukraine and the damage to its economy from Western sanctions.
Another local deputy said 65 municipal representatives from St Petersburg, Moscow and several other regions had signed a petition she published on Monday calling for Putin's resignation.
While posing no current threat to Putin's grip on power, the moves mark rare expressions of dissent by elected representatives at a time when Russians risk heavy prison sentences for "discrediting" the armed forces or spreading "deliberately false information" about them
Brave men. I salute them.
In reply to aircooled :
As I see it, no, reparations were not a real issue, but they were used effectively by hitler to start the blame game, which included the Jews. For him, and Putin, reality isn't important- the manipulation of information is.
Putin *should* have offered a better economy to the former Warsaw block countries, but offered intimidation instead. So countries went west for opportunity and security. Thus the expansion of the EU and NATO. He's right that it happened, but I really don't see it as an expansion as much as the countries looking for said opportunity and security.
Too bad for Russians, who now can see what the west offeres.
tuna55 said: I do not count academic literature as proof.
I think the only thing worse than simply accepting all academic literature is simply dismissing all of it.
It's generally best to take the opinion of experts into account.
tuna55 said:....On another subject, can anyone verify this? This sounds very promising if real.
O2 might want to comment on this as it seems like a sort of NATO light kind of security agreement, without of course involving NATO.
Yermak noted that the proposed proposals are based on the idea of creating a coalition of guarantors of Ukraine's security, which should be based on a system of agreements united under a joint document on strategic partnership. "We expect the Kyiv Security Compact to unite the main group of allied countries and Ukraine. This group of guarantor states may consist of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Poland, Italy, Germany, France, Australia, Turkey, as well as the countries of Northern Europe and the Baltic States, Central and Eastern Europe," he said.
You'll need to log in to post.
