Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Fullerene]

44 minutes ago, HK Hibee said:

I think the Russians fear being invaded.  Hard to understand as British folk as we haven’t really been invaded since 1066. (Arguably).

there is a book by a guy called Tim Marshall who explains this better than me. The short answer is that the French and Germans tried and nearly succeeded in conquering Russia in last 200 years and so having a buffer between those European powers and the border is important to them. Moscow is not that far away from the Ukrainian border in a tank.

 

note. I am not an apologist for why Putin did this but I do think the reasons  need examined

It is incredibly difficult to invade an island.  See the UK in WW2, as well as various islands in the Pacific War.  Hitler gave up - too much effort with too little to gain.

By comparison, the European plain is "Great tank country" as some enthusiasts would say.

It is easy to invade Russia and conquer a lot of territory.  Holding on to it is the fiddly bit.

The puzzle is why Russia thinks anybody wants to invade Russia.  NATO countries would not dare and similarly non-NATO countries.

[welshbairn]

Meanwhile, what Russian viewers are getting..

 

[Newbornbairn]

Admiral Igor Osipov, commander of the Black Sea Fleet, has been arrested by people in civilian clothes. Witnesses report that the detention was rather harsh - the admiral's adjutant was beaten very badly.

twitter.com/Israel...

[ICTChris]

 

Quote from the CIA director.  One thing that's interesting is the thought of a window for changing the "orientation" of Ukraine.  That's probably quite correct.  For example, if they had invaded a year ago then Ukraine wouldn't have had as many javelins/NLAWs.  They wouldn't have had the missiles they apparently used to sink the Moskva either.  The conclusion might be drawn that Putin's failure was waiting too long to invade.

[Newbornbairn]

 

[ICTChris]

 

 

[Wee Bully]

3 hours ago, HK Hibee said:

I think the Russians fear being invaded.  Hard to understand as British folk as we haven’t really been invaded since 1066. (Arguably).

The last English invasion of Scotland was 1650. 

[invergowrie arab]

3 hours ago, HK Hibee said:

I think the Russians fear being invaded.  Hard to understand as British folk as we haven’t really been invaded since 1066. (Arguably).

 

Who's the "we" who were invaded in 1066?

[Wee Bully]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Who's the "we" who were invaded in 1066?

Cultural imperialism!

[bennett]

Do the Russians have an information minister?

[Oystercatcher]

4 hours ago, HK Hibee said:

I think the Russians fear being invaded.  Hard to understand as British folk as we haven’t really been invaded since 1066. (Arguably).

there is a book by a guy called Tim Marshall who explains this better than me. The short answer is that the French and Germans tried and nearly succeeded in conquering Russia in last 200 years and so having a buffer between those European powers and the border is important to them. Moscow is not that far away from the Ukrainian border in a tank.

 

note. I am not an apologist for why Putin did this but I do think the reasons  need examined

Finished that book, "prisoners of geography" this week, absolutely fascinating read.

The world is a f*ckin tense place.

[Jacksgranda]

4 hours ago, HK Hibee said:

I think the Russians fear being invaded.  Hard to understand as British folk as we haven’t really been invaded since 1066. (Arguably).

there is a book by a guy called Tim Marshall who explains this better than me. The short answer is that the French and Germans tried and nearly succeeded in conquering Russia in last 200 years and so having a buffer between those European powers and the border is important to them. Moscow is not that far away from the Ukrainian border in a tank.

 

note. I am not an apologist for why Putin did this but I do think the reasons  need examined

It is if the tank gets bogged down in a tattie field...

[Left Back]

5 hours ago, HK Hibee said:

I think the Russians fear being invaded.  Hard to understand as British folk as we haven’t really been invaded since 1066. (Arguably).

there is a book by a guy called Tim Marshall who explains this better than me. The short answer is that the French and Germans tried and nearly succeeded in conquering Russia in last 200 years and so having a buffer between those European powers and the border is important to them. Moscow is not that far away from the Ukrainian border in a tank.

 

note. I am not an apologist for why Putin did this but I do think the reasons  need examined

 

50 minutes ago, Oystercatcher said:

Finished that book, "prisoners of geography" this week, absolutely fascinating read.

The world is a f*ckin tense place.

Just downloaded that to my Kindle.  If it's shite you c***s owe me £4.74.

[jagfox]

 

 

Spoiler

 

[jagfox]

 

 

[welshbairn]

On 14/04/2022 at 13:09, Salt n Vinegar said:

Aye, I'd be interested in that. The ones on Ebay seem to be from the USA.  

And they've rocketed up in price since the sinking was confirmed..

[SuperSaints1877]

1 hour ago, Wee Bully said:

The last English invasion of Scotland was 1650. 

The last proper Scottish invasion of England was Wembley’77.

[jagfox]

 

 

 

[Boo Khaki]

5 minutes ago, jagfox said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Makes the Russian Navy sound like a bunch of callous shits, but if the rumours are true about the ship rolling over onto it's side, and the seas were heavy, then I can see why a decision would be taken to stay with the ship rather than try to launch whatever lifeboat capacity they had left or just expect the survivors to take their chances in the water.

[LongTimeLurker]

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

...The conclusion might be drawn that Putin's failure was waiting too long to invade.

An intervention in 2014 to keep Viktor Yanukovych in power and seal the deal on his move to align with Russia economically rather than the EU was the time to do what he's doing now because a large portion of the state apparatus was aligned with the pro-Russian Party of the Regions at that point and would probably have been on his side. He would have been able to claim with some justification that he was protecting the constitutional order against a coup.

Vlad gets portrayed as some kind of strategic genius but when you look more closely it's not so obvious why. By instead removing Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea from Ukrainian elections he tilted the balance of Ukrainian politics towards a solidly pro-EU and pro-NATO stance creating a Ukrainian state that was going to be much more difficult for him to invade down the road.

He also seems to have been seriously out to lunch on how EU leaders would react to him going all 1930s over the very existence of a sovereign state right on their doorstep, because if the EU phase out Russian fossil fuel purchases then the entire system he has built will collapse. The violent overthrow of the Ukrainian state was never likely to instill confidence in Russia as a reliable business partner, so how he thought it could be business as usual in the aftermath is beyond me.

Edited April 15, 2022 by LongTimeLurker