Russian invasion of Ukraine

[ScotiaNostra]

On 15/05/2023 at 21:14, ICTChris said:

Lukashenko made a public appearance today, he looks absolutely haunted.

 

Amusingly he made comments about all the Russian aerospace losses at the weekend, he has to date his appearance by the latest Russian failure.

When its all over, he can get a job at Madame Tussauds

[welshbairn]

4 hours ago, beefybake said:

Sorry my comment doesn't quite fit into the narrative you wish to present.  It is though a clear statement of fact.

I suggest that you not try to deny, diminish or divert from that.

 

I wouldn't bother arguing with TxRover, he's the fastest Googler in the West.

[RuMoore]

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I wouldn't bother arguing with TxRover, he's the fastest Googler in the West.

 

[Guest]

John Sweeney has a new documentary focused on the ruination of civilian life in the worst-hit areas of eastern Ukraine. Here is an excerpt.

[beefybake]

3 hours ago, TxRover said:

You put the Bolshevik’s in charge of Russia in Oct 1917, they took control in 1922…sorry if that offends you. The Bolshevik’s, under Lenin, controlled Petrograd and a good portion of the army and navy…sufficient to negotiate an armistice with the Central Powers. Meanwhile, the armistice allowed the reconstituted Red Army to move against the Ukrainians and other separatists in the Don region. At that point the Ukrainians established a separate peace agreement with the Central Powers in early 1918, at the same time the Bolshevik armistice with the Central Powers collapsed. The Bolshevik’s then concluded a much less favorable peace treaty with the Central Powers (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). This allowed full concentration of the Red Army on the various White forces…but the final victory wasn’t until 1922.

I suggest that if you want to present an incorrect summary point as factual, you join the Tories.

The only person talking about Tories is you.   The Bolsheviks had the power and the authority to make a peace deal with Germany, and they did so at Brest Litovsk.

An armistice is not a peace deal, it's a cessation of active hostilities. A truce.

And if you had paused for a few moments, rather than trying to muddy the water, you' might have discerned that my comment was that the guys referring to 1917 seemed to have overlooked that the aftermath for Russia, of 1917, was in reality the acknowledgement of what was in effect military collapse,  as measured by the very harsh terms imposed/agreed  at Brest Litovsk. 

 

[TxRover]

4 minutes ago, beefybake said:

The only person talking about Tories is you.   The Bolsheviks had the power and the authority to make a peace deal with Germany, and they did so at Brest Litovsk.

An armistice is not a peace deal, it's a cessation of active hostilities. A truce.

And if you had paused for a few moments, rather than trying to muddy the water, you' might have discerned that my comment was that the guys referring to 1917 seemed to have overlooked that the aftermath for Russia, of 1917, was in reality the acknowledgement of what was in effect military collapse,  as measured by the very harsh terms imposed/agreed  at Brest Litovsk. 

 

No, Russia at that time included things like modern Ukraine and Finland, areas that were NOT included in the armistice, so the Bolshevik’s had the power and authority over a portion of Russia…and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk specifically only covered Bolshevik “Russia” as the other areas of Russia had already reached a peace with the Central Powers.

[dirty dingus]

Could any of the clued up folk on weaponry answer this for me. There's been fears and threats from Putin about Nuclear strikes but if Ukraine is shooting down Russian super hyper-sonic missiles, drones and other missiles etc at a really high percentage would firing anything nuclear not get the same response or would it be delivered like the old style atom bombs and dropped from a plane? Or would it be hard to hit as they are detonated well above ground level?

[ICTChris]

2 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

Could any of the clued up folk on weaponry answer this for me. There's been fears and threats from Putin about Nuclear strikes but if Ukraine is shooting down Russian super hyper-sonic missiles, drones and other missiles etc at a really high percentage would firing anything nuclear not get the same response or would it be delivered like the old style atom bombs and dropped from a plane? Or would it be hard to hit as they are detonated well above ground level?

I think that every missile type that Russia would use to deliver a tactical nuclear weapon has been intercepted in this war. The other night the Russians tried to attack using multiple  missiles and missile types but it seems all were intercepted. It certainly means that using a tactical nuclear on the battlefield is far riskier than they may have thought.

The missiles that would be used to attack thenWest, the strategic deterrent, are a different kettle of fish though. 

[vikingTON]

12 hours ago, TxRover said:

You put the Bolshevik’s in charge of Russia in Oct 1917, they took control in 1922…sorry if that offends you. The Bolshevik’s, under Lenin, controlled Petrograd and a good portion of the army and navy…sufficient to negotiate an armistice with the Central Powers. Meanwhile, the armistice allowed the reconstituted Red Army to move against the Ukrainians and other separatists in the Don region. At that point the Ukrainians established a separate peace agreement with the Central Powers in early 1918, at the same time the Bolshevik armistice with the Central Powers collapsed. The Bolshevik’s then concluded a much less favorable peace treaty with the Central Powers (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). This allowed full concentration of the Red Army on the various White forces…but the final victory wasn’t until 1922.

I suggest that if you want to present an incorrect summary point as factual, you join the Tories.

If by 'The Ukrainians' signed a peace with the Central Powers you mean 'a puppet regime installed by the Germans after the self-declared (and non-Bolshevik) Ukrainian Rada was expelled by force', sure. 

Unlike Finland, Ukraine did not become an independent state in 1917-18: it transferred to being a client state of Germany. Which is why when the Central Powers collapsed, many groups were left contesting control over Ukraine but the collaborationist regime did not stand a chance of winning. 

It's laughable to see you presenting the WW1 equivalent of the Donetsk/Luhansk republics as an authentic demonstration of Ukrainian separatism, just because it fits your one-eyed narrative. 

[LongTimeLurker]

The first person to convincingly work both the Idel-Ural Republic and Nestor Makhno into a post to further their argument wins.

[Dev]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The first person to convincingly work both the Idel-Ural Republic and Nestor Makhno into a post to further their argument wins.

There are reports of changes on the ground around/in Bahkmut. Have you found any maps showing this?

[TxRover]

3 hours ago, virginton said:

If by 'The Ukrainians' signed a peace with the Central Powers you mean 'a puppet regime installed by the Germans after the self-declared (and non-Bolshevik) Ukrainian Rada was expelled by force', sure. 

Unlike Finland, Ukraine did not become an independent state in 1917-18: it transferred to being a client state of Germany. Which is why when the Central Powers collapsed, many groups were left contesting control over Ukraine but the collaborationist regime did not stand a chance of winning. 

It's laughable to see you presenting the WW1 equivalent of the Donetsk/Luhansk republics as an authentic demonstration of Ukrainian separatism, just because it fits your one-eyed narrative. 

No, I’m not presenting it as an example of Ukrainian separatism, only a Putin apologist could see a note about the 5 year Russian Civil War as being some effort to address the current issue.

9 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

Could any of the clued up folk on weaponry answer this for me. There's been fears and threats from Putin about Nuclear strikes but if Ukraine is shooting down Russian super hyper-sonic missiles, drones and other missiles etc at a really high percentage would firing anything nuclear not get the same response or would it be delivered like the old style atom bombs and dropped from a plane? Or would it be hard to hit as they are detonated well above ground level?

Depends.

Using a short range ballistic missile our cruise missile,, yes they could perhaps intercept…but what is an intercept? You explode a counter missile close to or in contact with the attacking missile. This would generally, but not always, prevent the nuclear warhead from exploding.

Using an ICBM presents a different set is issues with a much higher velocity, and countermeasures that the theatre missiles don’t use, however the minimum range of ICBM’s causes issues and using a SLBM to overcome that problem would risk other issues with the U.S./UK/China/French response to even the launch (depending on the trajectory).

Using a theatre weapon in an artillery shell would avoid the issue, as might your suggestion of a gravity bomb…but both have staging issues.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

Ouch.

[beefybake]

13 hours ago, TxRover said:

No, Russia at that time included things like modern Ukraine and Finland, areas that were NOT included in the armistice, so the Bolshevik’s had the power and authority over a portion of Russia…and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk specifically only covered Bolshevik “Russia” as the other areas of Russia had already reached a peace with the Central Powers.

Still muddying the water....   

[LongTimeLurker]

An interesting seque but I guess Bakhmut was very much in Nestor Makhno territory. Maybe try following this guy for maps? It seems to be his niche.

 

 

[Dev]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

An interesting seque but I guess Bakhmut was very much in Nestor Makhno territory. Maybe try following this guy for maps? It seems to be his niche.

 

Thanks for the maps link. Much more interesting than other recent posts.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Dev
..

[The Other Foot]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

An interesting seque but I guess Bakhmut was very much in Nestor Makhno territory. Maybe try following this guy for maps? It seems to be his niche.

 

 

I find it really difficult to envisage urban warfare. On the map above it looks like Ukrainian territory in Bakhmut lies adjacent to Russian territory with nothing in-between. Is it, in effect, like having one army on the southern side of Princes Street (occupying Princes St Gardens, Waverly Station, the Old Town) and another army on the northern side (Jenners, Frederick St, Hanover St, George St etc)? Or is it more like a vague, but mutual, understanding that the north belongs to one, the south to another, and a whole load of shit like burned-up buildings and landmines in between?

[vikingTON]

6 hours ago, TxRover said:

No, I’m not presenting it as an example of Ukrainian separatism, only a Putin apologist could see a note about the 5 year Russian Civil War as being some effort to address the current issue.

It's really not my fault that your latest Wikipedia trawled 'note about the 5 year Russian Civil War' was categorical bollocks. 

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

It's really not my fault that your latest Wikipedia trawled 'note about the 5 year Russian Civil War' was categorical bollocks. 

I’m sorry you find it difficult to believe anyone but yourself could be in any way knowledgeable about history. I’ll take your inability to identify the “bollocks” as confirmation you couldn’t find any and just resorted to your canned responses.

[vikingTON]

24 minutes ago, TxRover said:

I’m sorry you find it difficult to believe anyone but yourself could be in any way knowledgeable about history. I’ll take your inability to identify the “bollocks” as confirmation you couldn’t find any and just resorted to your canned responses.

^^^ word salad