Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[IlovethePies]

From what I recall, he wanted to keep NATO from Russia's borders.

Despite NATO countries already sitting on Russia's borders?

Why the change of heart with Ukraine?

Why claim Ukraine isn't even really a sovereign nation if you just want to secure your own borders and have no real designs on the land?

...and I have also explained in a previous post why Ukraine was an absolute red line for Putin's regime, far more so than the Baltic republics etc.

 

[Rob R]

Yes, Britain entered the war in 1939, but did nothing in terms of engaging the Wehrmacht militarily.

Stalin was pleading with Churchill and Roosevelt for 1 to 2 years to open a second front in Europe to relieve the pressure on the Soviet Union.

Both refused, hoping that the NAzis would bleed Russia white...until they saw in 1944 that the Red Army was on the verge of conquering Germany itself and then rolling on into Western Europe.

The D-Day invasion of Dunkirk was aimed against the Red army, not against Hitler. The Red Army had already dealt the death blow to Hitler.

Lol, you can't even get the facts right. British fought in Norway, Belgium, France, Africa, Greece, Crete, over Germany, at sea and over Britain itself while Stalin was busy collaborating.

PS. Dday was at Normandy, Dunkirk was where the British Army evacuated for no reason apparently since according to you they didn't fight the Wehrmacht.

As for the D Day not being till 44, it takes time to build the means to conduct the largest amphibious assault in history especially when you are fighting all over the world while Allies like Stalin and Mao decide to sit out the war with Japan. You do know the battle of Kursk ended because the Germans had to send their armour to deal with the Allies attacking Italy in mid 43.

In no way do I mean to diminish the bravery of the Russian people, just the Russian and Chinese people of today, they had no say over the failures of their leaders who in a just world would be tried and executed at the Hague

You should really start putting "these points authorised by Putin" at the bottom of your posts.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[IlovethePies]

The Soviet Union in WW2 is in the exact position of Ukraine. Ill-equipped to fight a more dominant neighbour, but relied on funding and supplies from the west to turn back the aggressors.

What do you mean "only decided to intervene"? The UK (and Australia) were at war the whole time, longer than Russia who made a treaty with Germany after they started WW2.

Yes, did not explain that properly, I agree. British forces engaged with the Wehrmacht in regions peripheral to continental Europe such as North Africa from 1940 to 43, and also in combatting Japanese forces in south east asia. US troops only became involved in 1941 after Pearl Harbour, and were assigned initially mainly to combat against Japan.

In 1942, Stalin met with Churchill and Roosevelt, demanding that his "allies" establish a second front in Europe to divert Nazi military resources away from Operation Barbarossa.

Churchill and Roosevelt refused, claiming that this would be "miltary folly". The Stalinist government produced arguments claiming to show that in fact the Allies did have the necessary resources to open such a front.

The US priority in WW2 was to defeat Japan (which it had previously provoked into the Pearl Harbour attack by choking off Japan's oil supplies).

The prospect of the Soviet Union and Germany pulverising each other was strategically beneficial to the US, in its ambition to emerge from WW2 as the most dominant economic power.

By this stage, Churchill was acting merely as a sidekick for Roosevelt, as Britain was hopelessly indebted to the US.

Only when it became clear that the Soviet Union had risen from the dead and had emerged from the catastrophic Nazi invasion as a powerful military force, and with the Red Army advancing through Eastern Europe towards Germany did the US decide that it had to now devote massive military resources to an invasion of Continental Europe in order to prevent the Red Army from advancing into Western Europe as well. D-Day was far more the opening operation of the Cold War than it was the "liberation of France".

When I said that Britain and the US did little to militarily engage the Wehrmacht, i was referring mostly to the years 1940 to 43, when the fate of the Soviet Union hung by a thread.

 

[IlovethePies]

Lol, you can't even get the facts right. British fought in Norway, Belgium, France, Africa, Greece, Crete, over Germany, at sea and over Britain itself while Stalin was busy collaborating.

PS. Dday was at Normandy, Dunkirk was where the British Army evacuated for no reason apparently since according to you they didn't fight the Wehrmacht.

As for the D Day not being till 44, it takes time to build the means to conduct the largest amphibious assault in history especially when you are fighting all over the world while Allies like Stalin and Mao decide to sit out the war with Japan. You do know the battle of Kursk ended because the Germans had to send their armour to deal with the Allies attacking Italy in mid 43.

In no way do I mean to diminish the bravery of the Russian people, just the Russian and Chinese people of today, they had no say over the failures of their leaders who in a just world would be tried and executed at the Hague

You should really start putting "these points authorised by Putin" at the bottom of your posts.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

No proof of the claim that the nazis lost the battle of Kursk for that reason. The fundamental reason that the Nazis lost Kursk were their massive losses in armour and in troops incurred through the previous two years of all out war against the Soviet Union, and the ability of the Soviet Union to transplant its war economy to the East and draw tactical and strategic lessons from initial battles.

Moreover, the Soviets had correctly anticipated the German offensive around Kursk, and had created massive anti tank fortifications beforehand, which slowed down the German advance.

It is true that the Allied invasion of Sicily forced Hitler to transfer tanks away from the East and to the Mediterranean. However this was not the cause of the defeat at Kursk. The Germans could never have achieved a victory, because the Soviets outnumbered the German army in every respect. Having learned from their experiences, the Soviet commanders had become highly skilled in executing combined operations that the devastated the Wehrmacht lines, and to which the Nazis could not respond adequately. Had Hitler not moved tanks away from Kursk, the catastrophe might have been lessened, but the ultimate trajectory of the war would not have changed one iota.

It is utterly tedious how every poster here thinks that I am posting "on behalf of Putin". The world does not just consist of those who support the US and Zelensky, and those who support Putin. There are those who oppose both US imperialism and Russian nationalism.
That's me.

Unfortunately, there are many who jump to the conclusion that when their own pro US/NATO assumptions are challenged, then the source of this challenge must somehow come from Putin.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, this is a binary framework, and is an impossible framework from which to truly understand reality.

 

[Ballarat Bob]

1940 Russia was not as war with Germany ? What are you on about ? Barbarossa wasn't launched until June 1941.
The Allied forces were engaged in North Africa from 1940 until 1943 then proceeded to invade Italy. Also there was fighting in Greece , Norway and France.

 

[IlovethePies]

1940 Russia was not as war with Germany ? What are you on about ? Barbarossa wasn't launched until June 1941.
The Allied forces were engaged in North Africa from 1940 until 1943 then proceeded to invade Italy. Also there was fighting in Greece , Norway and France.

Did not say that the Soviet Union was at war with the Nazis in 1940. Simply explained that the Allies were not involved in operations on continental Europe in a big way until about 1943, and even then not in a way that relieved much pressure on the Soviet Union after June 1941.

 

[Zidane98]

...and I have also explained in a previous post why Ukraine was an absolute red line for Putin's regime, far more so than the Baltic republics etc.

Yes and it's all nonsense.

Ukrainians wants to be part of Europe, not a puppet state of Russia.

It is what the majority of Ukrainians have wanted for some time now.

Russia has no right to interfere in Ukraine. Should stick to Belarus.

I realise you can't go off script but you need to accept the USSR era is over.

 

[Zidane98]

No proof of the claim that the nazis lost the battle of Kursk for that reason. The fundamental reason that the Nazis lost Kursk were their massive losses in armour and in troops incurred through the previous two years of all out war against the Soviet Union, and the ability of the Soviet Union to transplant its war economy to the East and draw tactical and strategic lessons from initial battles.

Moreover, the Soviets had correctly anticipated the German offensive around Kursk, and had created massive anti tank fortifications beforehand, which slowed down the German advance.

It is true that the Allied invasion of Sicily forced Hitler to transfer tanks away from the East and to the Mediterranean. However this was not the cause of the defeat at Kursk. The Germans could never have achieved a victory, because the Soviets outnumbered the German army in every respect. Having learned from their experiences, the Soviet commanders had become highly skilled in executing combined operations that the devastated the Wehrmacht lines, and to which the Nazis could not respond adequately. Had Hitler not moved tanks away from Kursk, the catastrophe might have been lessened, but the ultimate trajectory of the war would not have changed one iota.

It is utterly tedious how every poster here thinks that I am posting "on behalf of Putin". The world does not just consist of those who support the US and Zelensky, and those who support Putin. There are those who oppose both US imperialism and Russian nationalism.
That's me.

Unfortunately, there are many who jump to the conclusion that when their own pro US/NATO assumptions are challenged, then the source of this challenge must somehow come from Putin.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, this is a binary framework, and is an impossible framework from which to truly understand reality.

Anyone who keeps referencing US/NATO is obviously a pro Putin propaganda puppet.

It is a coping mechanism for those that simply cannot accept the fact that;

- Ukraine is no longer a vassall state of Russia or ever will be again due to the fact that Putin launched a fascist invasion of Ukraine that was absolutely unjust.

- Ukrainians have voted in majority for a future as a European nation

- Putin falsely believes Ukraine is really Russia and Ukranians aren't real people.

 

[IlovethePies]

Yes and it's all nonsense.

Ukrainians wants to be part of Europe, not a puppet state of Russia.

It is what the majority of Ukrainians have wanted for some time now.

Russia has no right to interfere in Ukraine. Should stick to Belarus.

I realise you can't go off script but you need to accept the USSR era is over.

I have never claimed that Putin had any right whatsoever to invade Ukraine. I keep repeating this, but you never get it.



a) Putin had no right to invade Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine was criminal and reactionary to the core.

b) Putin invaded not because he aimed to reconquer and re-annex Ukraine, but because Ukraine was becoming and has become a militarised garrison state of NATO in a geostrategically vital position of eastern Europe. His invasion was aimed at cutting a deal with NATO which would, in his regime's view, improve Russia's national security position.

c) Ukraine is geostrategically vital because it is the bridge between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. If Ukraine is part of NATO, then NATO dominates this entire bridge spanning continental Europe, NATO will control both the Black Sea AND the Baltic Sea, a situation which strategically makes the Putin regime's situation untenable.

d) NATO is not fighting for "peace and democracy". The same governments in the NATO alliance also support the genocide by Israel in Gaza. The aim of US imperialism and NATO is regime change in Russia, the overthrow of Putin and the dismemberment of Russia into ethnically based and powerless nation states with regimes willing to allow US and European corporations in to loot the vast resources of this region of the earth for super profits.

e) Putin's invasion was a catastrophic blunder politically. Putin totally misjudged the imperialist governments. He thought they would be willing to cut a deal. He was totally wrong. His invasion played into their hands, and gave them the casus belli they were looking for to use Ukraine as a proxy in a war against Russia to achieve their strategic aims.

f) Putin understands that the existence of his regime is at stake. That is why he cannot simply retreat back to the previous pre war situation. For NATO, victory means the overthrow of Putin and the carving up of the Russian Federation.

The war in Ukraine is part of an overall war by the US and its NaTO allies for the redivision of the globe. Putin's regime represents a section of the Russian financial oligarchy which wants to retain its own resources and assets, within the framework of that redivision. But imperialism is saying to Putin: no, we won't let you keep your cut of the wealth. We want it, plus control over the Russian land mass. You're not sufficiently servile to our needs.

This is why there is a very real danger that this war could escalate into a nuclear war. If the Putin regime feels that its existence is on the point of destruction, there is no reason to assume that it will refrain from nuclear weapons.

For one last time, I will repeat it: one can be opposed to both the Ukrainian government AND the Russian government. One can be opposed both to NATO and to Putin.

finally, to address your final comment. Putin has absolutely nothing to do with defending the "heritage of the ex USSR"" and his regime is in no way the "continuation of the USSR". He comes from the layer of criminal and corrupt Stalinist bureaucrats who liquidated the Soviet Union and reimposed capitalism in order to plunder the nationalised property and make themselves extremely rich capitalist oligarchs, at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

 

[Rob R]

I have never claimed that Putin had any right whatsoever to invade Ukraine. I keep repeating this, but you never get it.



a) Putin had no right to invade Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine was criminal and reactionary to the core.

b) Putin invaded not because he aimed to reconquer and re-annex Ukraine, but because Ukraine was becoming and has become a militarised garrison state of NATO in a geostrategically vital position of eastern Europe. His invasion was aimed at cutting a deal with NATO which would, in his regime's view, improve Russia's national security position.

c) Ukraine is geostrategically vital because it is the bridge between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. If Ukraine is part of NATO, then NATO dominates this entire bridge spanning continental Europe, NATO will control both the Black Sea AND the Baltic Sea, a situation which strategically makes the Putin regime's situation untenable.

d) NATO is not fighting for "peace and democracy". The same governments in the NATO alliance also support the genocide by Israel in Gaza. The aim of US imperialism and NATO is regime change in Russia, the overthrow of Putin and the dismemberment of Russia into ethnically based and powerless nation states with regimes willing to allow US and European corporations in to loot the vast resources of this region of the earth for super profits.

e) Putin's invasion was a catastrophic blunder politically. Putin totally misjudged the imperialist governments. He thought they would be willing to cut a deal. He was totally wrong. His invasion played into their hands, and gave them the casus belli they were looking for to use Ukraine as a proxy in a war against Russia to achieve their strategic aims.

f) Putin understands that the existence of his regime is at stake. That is why he cannot simply retreat back to the previous pre war situation. For NATO, victory means the overthrow of Putin and the carving up of the Russian Federation.

The war in Ukraine is part of an overall war by the US and its NaTO allies for the redivision of the globe. Putin's regime represents a section of the Russian financial oligarchy which wants to retain its own resources and assets, within the framework of that redivision. But imperialism is saying to Putin: no, we won't let you keep your cut of the wealth. We want it, plus control over the Russian land mass. You're not sufficiently servile to our needs.

This is why there is a very real danger that this war could escalate into a nuclear war. If the Putin regime feels that its existence is on the point of destruction, there is no reason to assume that it will refrain from nuclear weapons.

For one last time, I will repeat it: one can be opposed to both the Ukrainian government AND the Russian government. One can be opposed both to NATO and to Putin.

finally, to address your final comment. Putin has absolutely nothing to do with defending the "heritage of the ex USSR"" and his regime is in no way the "continuation of the USSR". He comes from the layer of criminal and corrupt Stalinist bureaucrats who liquidated the Soviet Union and reimposed capitalism in order to plunder the nationalised property and make themselves extremely rich capitalist oligarchs, at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

So opposed to Putin but consistently requiring his PR points and justifying his behaviour as everyone else's fault including Ukraine.



On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[IlovethePies]

So opposed to Putin but consistently requiring his PR points and justifying his behaviour as everyone else's fault including Ukraine.



On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

But if you genuinely read my post above, you would realise that I blame Putin just as much as every other government involved in this catastrophic war.

There are moments when capitalist politicians do say a word of truth, when it suits their interests. So Putin points out that there are Nazis in the Ukrainian regime, because this serves his propaganda interests.

This does not alter the fact however that there are Nazis in Zelensky's regime.

 

[wannabejack]

But if you genuinely read my post above, you would realise that I blame Putin just as much as every other government involved in this catastrophic war.

There are moments when capitalist politicians do say a word of truth, when it suits their interests. So Putin points out that there are Nazis in the Ukrainian regime, because this serves his propaganda interests.

This does not alter the fact however that there are Nazis in Zelensky's regime.

There have been many previous posts that this is not fact (baseless claims). Here is one more.

Ukraine war: President Putin speech fact-checked

The Russian president gave a long address in Moscow - we've fact-checked of some his claims.

www.bbc.com

Mr Putin has repeatedly made baseless claims about a "neo-Nazi regime" in Ukraine as a justification for Russia's invasion of the country.
In Ukraine's last parliamentary election in 2019, support for far-right candidates was 2%, far lower than in many other European countries.

It should also be noted that President Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish and members of his family died in the Holocaust.
But there have been far-right groups in Ukraine - the most high-profile is the Azov regiment - elements of which have expressed support for Nazi ideology.

It was formed to resist Russian-backed separatists, who seized areas of eastern Ukraine in 2014, and was subsequently absorbed as a unit within the Ukrainian military.

“One of the brigades of the Ukrainian armed forces... was awarded the name Edelweiss, …..”
Here, Mr Putin drew a comparison between a Ukrainian army unit and the Nazis' 1st Mountain Division - which had the Edelweiss flower on its insignia and committed war crimes in the Second World War.

On 14 February, President Zelensky gave the 10th Separate Mountain Assault Brigade the honorary title: Edelweiss.
The next day, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlighted this as "evidence" of Nazis in Ukraine in a tweet.
But the Edelweiss flower - which grows in Alpine regions - has been used as a symbol by other European mountain military divisions, including the Croatian Mountain Rescue Service, Swiss Army generals and the 21st Rifles Brigade of Poland.
Even Russia had a special unit called Edelweiss. The 17th special purpose detachment of Rosgvardia was given this title in 2011. The name was changed to Avanguard in 2016.

Is there any truth to Russia's 'Ukrainian Nazis' propaganda? – DW – 12/03/2022

Russian propagandists are constantly saying Ukraine is full of Nazis, and posting alleged evidence online. DW's fact-checking team has investigated some of this supposed evidence.

www.dw.com

Umland said that although there were right-wing extremists groups in Ukraine, they were relatively weak in comparison with many European countries. "We had a unity front of all the right-wing radical parties at the last [EU] parliamentary elections in 2019, and that unity front received 2.15%," he said.

 

[jatz14]

Yes, Britain entered the war in 1939, but did nothing in terms of engaging the Wehrmacht militarily.

Stalin was pleading with Churchill and Roosevelt for 1 to 2 years to open a second front in Europe to relieve the pressure on the Soviet Union.

Both refused, hoping that the NAzis would bleed Russia white...until they saw in 1944 that the Red Army was on the verge of conquering Germany itself and then rolling on into Western Europe.

The D-Day invasion of Dunkirk was aimed against the Red army, not against Hitler. The Red Army had already dealt the death blow to Hitler.

They had to land an army on an occupied continent, establish a bridgehead on a coastline the the Germans had years to prepare defences on. Then get and keep the enormous quantities of supplies such a large force in intense combat requires every day.

As it is, most people aren't really aware of how close the Normandy landings came to failing.

The Dieppe landings in 1942 were a catastrophic failure.

It didn't matter how badly the Soviets needed them to attack earlier, it didn't even matter how much they wanted to attack earlier, they were not remotely capable of pulling it off.

If they go 12 months earlier, and it fails, which it would have, it's a long time before they try again, leaving Russia in a worse position.

Your ability to take isolated facts in history, and twist them to suite your narrative is impressive.

Like the Soviets taking their time attacking imperial Japan like Roosevelt asked them to do.

They weren't bleeding America dry, they had to move an army across a continent and reform it in fighting order.

Weaponised ignorance is a powerful thing.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

Yes, Britain entered the war in 1939, but did nothing in terms of engaging the Wehrmacht militarily.

Stalin was pleading with Churchill and Roosevelt for 1 to 2 years to open a second front in Europe to relieve the pressure on the Soviet Union.

Both refused, hoping that the NAzis would bleed Russia white...until they saw in 1944 that the Red Army was on the verge of conquering Germany itself and then rolling on into Western Europe.

The D-Day invasion of Dunkirk was aimed against the Red army, not against Hitler. The Red Army had already dealt the death blow to Hitler.

Another fact highlighting this stupidity.

The US launched the invasion without a heavy tank to take on Russian armour.

They did this because the heavy tank that was developed at the time their medium tank was developed, turned out to be an unusable pile of shit.

They decided that they would just have to make as many medium tanks as they could, because they couldn't wait, time was too pressing.

This was explicitly because they needed to relieve pressure on the Soviets and land in Europe as soon as possible, and they couldn't develop a heavy tank fast enough.

Stalin, of course, would want them to land in Europe immediately. And he would press them to make it happen as fast as possible.

But he also needs it to succeed, them landing and getting pushed back into the sea is worse for Russia than not landing at all.

The fact is that the landings in Italy were designed and pushed by Churchill for this very reason. It was a reprisal of Churchill's WW1 fantasy of driving to Germany thought the soft underbelly of Europe.

In the defeat of Germany, the attempt to drive through Italy made no strategic sense, it contributed almost nothing.

It was done as a way of trying to press Germany in Europe in the interim, while they tried to make sure the D day landings weren't slaughtered, which was a very real possibility.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[IlovethePies]

There have been many previous posts that this is not fact (baseless claims). Here is one more.

Ukraine war: President Putin speech fact-checked

The Russian president gave a long address in Moscow - we've fact-checked of some his claims.

www.bbc.com

Mr Putin has repeatedly made baseless claims about a "neo-Nazi regime" in Ukraine as a justification for Russia's invasion of the country.
In Ukraine's last parliamentary election in 2019, support for far-right candidates was 2%, far lower than in many other European countries.

It should also be noted that President Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish and members of his family died in the Holocaust.
But there have been far-right groups in Ukraine - the most high-profile is the Azov regiment - elements of which have expressed support for Nazi ideology.

It was formed to resist Russian-backed separatists, who seized areas of eastern Ukraine in 2014, and was subsequently absorbed as a unit within the Ukrainian military.

“One of the brigades of the Ukrainian armed forces... was awarded the name Edelweiss, …..”
Here, Mr Putin drew a comparison between a Ukrainian army unit and the Nazis' 1st Mountain Division - which had the Edelweiss flower on its insignia and committed war crimes in the Second World War.

On 14 February, President Zelensky gave the 10th Separate Mountain Assault Brigade the honorary title: Edelweiss.
The next day, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlighted this as "evidence" of Nazis in Ukraine in a tweet.
But the Edelweiss flower - which grows in Alpine regions - has been used as a symbol by other European mountain military divisions, including the Croatian Mountain Rescue Service, Swiss Army generals and the 21st Rifles Brigade of Poland.
Even Russia had a special unit called Edelweiss. The 17th special purpose detachment of Rosgvardia was given this title in 2011. The name was changed to Avanguard in 2016.

Is there any truth to Russia's 'Ukrainian Nazis' propaganda? – DW – 12/03/2022

Russian propagandists are constantly saying Ukraine is full of Nazis, and posting alleged evidence online. DW's fact-checking team has investigated some of this supposed evidence.

www.dw.com

Umland said that although there were right-wing extremists groups in Ukraine, they were relatively weak in comparison with many European countries. "We had a unity front of all the right-wing radical parties at the last [EU] parliamentary elections in 2019, and that unity front received 2.15%," he said.

Sources such as DW and BBC are official propaganda conduits for the very same imperialist governments who are currently participating in the war in Ukraine by training Ukrainian military forces and by sending lethal weapons to the Ukrainian army. To quote these sources as proof of your argument is equivalent to a Putin supporter quoting TASS as proof for their arguments.

 

[jatz14]

Sources such as DW and BBC are official propaganda conduits for the very same imperialist governments who are currently participating in the war in Ukraine by training Ukrainian military forces and by sending lethal weapons to the Ukrainian army. To quote these sources as proof of your argument is equivalent to a Putin supporter quoting TASS as proof for their arguments.

One of the key reasons that Ukraine has to keep begging for supplies is because Western arms manufacturers have been reluctant to invest money in expanding production.

This is because Western arm manufacturers do not see this war as long term, they think it ends, so if you invest 100 mill in a new missile factory based on demand generated by Ukraine, then peace is declared, your stuck with a brand new factory who's products you don't have a customer for.

If we look at Russia, what we see is the drop in value of income from their key export products, but growth figures remain strong, a contradiction explained by the partial conversion of the Russian economy to a war economy.

Plus South Korea estimates North Korea has sent something like 6 million shells to Russia, plus a bunch of other suppies. This they did both by sending old stock, and massively ramping up military production. So Russia has effectively avoided the issue of completely converting to a war economy by exporting the pain of that, to North Korea.

The West has largely supported Ukraine from stockpiles and old equipment, a fact utterly contrary to any assertion that the West is warmongering and deliberately prolonging the war for some sort of profit.

North Korea and Russia however, are now economically dependant on this being a forever war. North Korea in particular, by converting part of their meagre economy to even more military production, are almost entirely dependent on this war going a long time, evidenced by the fact they are being partly paid in food.

Russia too, have numerous companies who's normal domestic business has become non viable due to sanctions, entirely dependent on government payments for military contracts.

Russia started the war.
Russia is the reason it keeps going.
Primary amongst billionaires profiting from this war are Russian oligarchs.
It's Russia caught in an eco omic bind, whereby the nations elites see benefits in keeping the fighting going.

Again, claiming that the fact this war is ongoing is due to war mongers in London or Brussels or Washington, and not the warmongers that actually started the war, and who are made richer by it.

Weaponised ignorance.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[IlovethePies]

One of the key reasons that Ukraine has to keep begging for supplies is because Western arms manufacturers have been reluctant to invest money in expanding production.

This is because Western arm manufacturers do not see this war as long term, they think it ends, so if you invest 100 mill in a new missile factory based on demand generated by Ukraine, then peace is declared, your stuck with a brand new factory who's products you don't have a customer for.

If we look at Russia, what we see is the drop in value of income from their key export products, but growth figures remain strong, a contradiction explained by the partial conversion of the Russian economy to a war economy.

Plus South Korea estimates North Korea has sent something like 6 million shells to Russia, plus a bunch of other suppies. This they did both by sending old stock, and massively ramping up military production. So Russia has effectively avoided the issue of completely converting to a war economy by exporting the pain of that, to North Korea.

The West has largely supported Ukraine from stockpiles and old equipment, a fact utterly contrary to any assertion that the West is warmongering and deliberately prolonging the war for some sort of profit.

North Korea and Russia however, are now economically dependant on this being a forever war. North Korea in particular, by converting part of their meagre economy to even more military production, are almost entirely dependent on this war going a long time, evidenced by the fact they are being partly paid in food.

Russia too, have numerous companies who's normal domestic business has become non viable due to sanctions, entirely dependent on government payments for military contracts.

Russia started the war.
Russia is the reason it keeps going.
Primary amongst billionaires profiting from this war are Russian oligarchs.
It's Russia caught in an eco omic bind, whereby the nations elites see benefits in keeping the fighting going.

Again, claiming that the fact this war is ongoing is due to war mongers in London or Brussels or Washington, and not the warmongers that actually started the war, and who are made richer by it.

Weaponised ignorance.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

You are simply putting forward the absurd argument that war is caused by whoever fired the first shot.

 

[Rob R]

You are simply putting forward the absurd argument that war is caused by whoever fired the first shot.

Pretty sure if a country launches a massive invasion of a neighbour, that is starting the war - we aren't talking about one shot.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Zidane98]

You are simply putting forward the absurd argument that war is caused by whoever fired the first shot.

Anyone who isn't an idiot or pushing Russian propaganda acknowledges this war was stated by Putin because he honestly believes Ukraine is Russia. Any attempt by Ukrainians that is counter to Putin's dreams of a new Russian empire is seen by Putin as blocking his ambitions to take over Ukraine.

This war was absolutely started by Putin for no genuine reason at all.

 

[Zidane98]

Pretty sure if a country launches a massive invasion of a neighbour, that is starting the war - we aren't talking about one shot.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Ukraine deserved it according to some.


Despite never once threatening Russia.

 

[IlovethePies]

Anyone who isn't an idiot or pushing Russian propaganda acknowledges this war was stated by Putin because he honestly believes Ukraine is Russia. Any attempt by Ukrainians that is counter to Putin's dreams of a new Russian empire is seen by Putin as blocking his ambitions to take over Ukraine.

This war was absolutely started by Putin for no genuine reason at all.

if your method of analysis were applied to say the history of World War 1, the conclusion would be that World War 1 started because the Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist and for no genuine reason other than this, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

 

[Zidane98]

if your method of analysis were applied to say the history of World War 1, the conclusion would be that World War 1 started because the Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist and for no genuine reason other than this, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

What Putin did to Ukraine and the justifications are very similar to Hitlers justification of invading Poland and thus starting WW2.

Putin ironically is on record blaming Poland also.

Why you bring up the above nonsense about WW1 which is in no way similar - well only you can answer that (if it's in your script).

 

[Chief]

...and I have also explained in a previous post why Ukraine was an absolute red line for Putin's regime, far more so than the Baltic republics etc.

Why claim Ukraine isn't even really a sovereign nation if you just want to secure your own borders and have no real designs on the land?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Another fact highlighting this stupidity.

The US launched the invasion without a heavy tank to take on Russian armour.

They did this because the heavy tank that was developed at the time their medium tank was developed, turned out to be an unusable pile of shit.

They decided that they would just have to make as many medium tanks as they could, because they couldn't wait, time was too pressing.

This was explicitly because they needed to relieve pressure on the Soviets and land in Europe as soon as possible, and they couldn't develop a heavy tank fast enough.

Stalin, of course, would want them to land in Europe immediately. And he would press them to make it happen as fast as possible.

But he also needs it to succeed, them landing and getting pushed back into the sea is worse for Russia than not landing at all.

The fact is that the landings in Italy were designed and pushed by Churchill for this very reason. It was a reprisal of Churchill's WW1 fantasy of driving to Germany thought the soft underbelly of Europe.

In the defeat of Germany, the attempt to drive through Italy made no strategic sense, it contributed almost nothing.

It was done as a way of trying to press Germany in Europe in the interim, while they tried to make sure the D day landings weren't slaughtered, which was a very real possibility.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

Stalin was one of the biggest bastards that ever existed, and no-one in the west wanted to do him any favors , ally or not. General Patton wanted to enlist captured German Soldiers and use them to drive the Russians back to the Russian Border.
The Russians weren't kicking anyone's ass, theirs was a war of attrition.

Patton's colleagues thought he was an insane warmonger, drinking the "war is over" bathwater. In hindsite i think he was visionary.

 

[jatz14]

Stalin was one of the biggest bastards that ever existed, and no-one in the west wanted to do him any favors , ally or not. General Patton wanted to enlist captured German Soldiers and use them to drive the Russians back to the Russian Border.
The Russians weren't kicking anyone's ass, theirs was a war of attrition.

Patton's colleagues thought he was an insane warmonger, drinking the "war is over" bathwater. In hindsite i think he was visionary.

Non the less, the Americans did ask him to attack the Japanese in China, which he did, eventually. It was this that actually ended the war and not the A bomb, as Japans plan for after the invasion of Japan, was to use the 3 million man army in China, which the Russians then started to destroy.