War In Ukraine

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Russia sure isn't winning it.

You know - joking aside this really is a complex question. How do we define winning the war? Achieving the objectives? or does winning have differnet levels, like sort of won, won, really won, and so on?

Russia clearly intended to take control of ukraine. And they intended the war to be short. There is much evidence fort his.

So from an 'objectives' point of view they lost.  But - if they still walk away with more land and the donbas area etc - is that a win? Or not?

Ukraine wanted to avoid being taken over by russia as their goal and has added taking back crimea. I doubt they will achieve that, there's a pretty good chance they'll lose a little land and won't get crimea back.  But - if they end the war and drive off the russians and have 90 percent of their land back is that a victory? Given what it's done to their country?

Really the only clear winners appear to be nato and the west, which is fine with me. But kind of crappy for russia and the ukraine

[Aristides]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You know - joking aside this really is a complex question. How do we define winning the war? Achieving the objectives? or does winning have differnet levels, like sort of won, won, really won, and so on?

Russia clearly intended to take control of ukraine. And they intended the war to be short. There is much evidence fort his.

So from an 'objectives' point of view they lost.  But - if they still walk away with more land and the donbas area etc - is that a win? Or not?

Ukraine wanted to avoid being taken over by russia as their goal and has added taking back crimea. I doubt they will achieve that, there's a pretty good chance they'll lose a little land and won't get crimea back.  But - if they end the war and drive off the russians and have 90 percent of their land back is that a victory? Given what it's done to their country?

Really the only clear winners appear to be nato and the west, which is fine with me. But kind of crappy for russia and the ukraine

This is a disaster for both Ukraine and Russia and Putin is the cause. He has turned much of Ukraine into a waste land and has weakened Russia militarily, is responsible for 10's if not 100's of thousands of deaths and turned Russia into an international pariah. I don't know that there will be any real winners but NATO will certainly be stronger as a result and Putin has no one but himself to blame.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You know - joking aside this really is a complex question. How do we define winning the war? Achieving the objectives? or does winning have differnet levels, like sort of won, won, really won, and so on?

Russia clearly intended to take control of ukraine. And they intended the war to be short. There is much evidence fort his.

So from an 'objectives' point of view they lost.  But - if they still walk away with more land and the donbas area etc - is that a win? Or not?

Ukraine wanted to avoid being taken over by russia as their goal and has added taking back crimea. I doubt they will achieve that, there's a pretty good chance they'll lose a little land and won't get crimea back.  But - if they end the war and drive off the russians and have 90 percent of their land back is that a victory? Given what it's done to their country?

Really the only clear winners appear to be nato and the west, which is fine with me. But kind of crappy for russia and the ukraine

Which is sort of what I've been saying...sort of...all along. Except...I think nato has diminished itself.

If they both lose or both win...so be it. They can both go home with their participation trophies. 

[athos]

EU Vassal logic at work

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by athos

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, athos said:

EU Vassal logic at work

 

And if they are they are paying next to nothing for it. Buy Russian oil cheap, sell it for a lot and leave their own in the ground. 

 

Putin is sooo smart.

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Aristides said:

And if they are they are paying next to nothing for it. Buy Russian oil cheap, sell it for a lot and leave their own in the ground. 

 

Putin is sooo smart.

 

Yeah - its pretty funny Its basically forcing russia to sell at a discount.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - its pretty funny Its basically forcing russia to sell at a discount.

Basically what the Americans are doing with our oil because they are our only customer.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Basically what the Americans are doing with our oil because they are our only customer.

Pretty much.

[Nationalist]

15 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Finland joins NATO, but this one keeps talking about NATO being diminished. 

Do you think before you write?! of course you do not, you are a great customer.

For folks which know geo-politics, this video shows a reminder as to what Finland joining NATO means, contrary to the manipulation above.

Oh yes...the great military of Finland.

Nato has made itself a collection of silliness.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Oh yes...the great military of Finland.

Nato has made itself a collection of silliness.

why would you think the Finnish military is a joke ?

the Finnish military is far better prepared than most NATO forces

Finland is a fully militarized state with universal conscription

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

why would you think the Finnish military is a joke ?

the Finnish military is far better prepared than most NATO forces

Finland is a fully militarized state with universal conscription

I think Nato is a joke. Outlived it's usefulness. More of a hindrance than any help. An American tool that Biden is abusing and going to break.

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I think Nato is a joke. Outlived it's usefulness. More of a hindrance than any help. An American tool that Biden is abusing and going to break.

fair enough

I was just asking about Finland specifically

because in my experience, the Finnish military is hardcore

they certainly put the Canadian military to shame

Finland is ready to fight tonight, all out war if necessary, no delay

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Oh yes...the great military of Finland.

Nato has made itself a collection of silliness.

Per capita, Finland is arguably the most militarized country in Europe.

More MBT’s than Germany, more artillery than the UK and soon to have 65 F-35’s in a country with the population of BC.

Why are they so militarized? Just look at their neighbour, and it ain’t Sweden.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Per capita, Finland is arguably the most militarized country in Europe.

More MBT’s than Germany, more artillery than the UK and soon to have 65 F-35’s in a country with the population of BC.

200,000 troops when fully mobilized

I have some friends in the Finnish Army

and they are totally committed, ready to go over the top when the whistle blows for their Colours

if the Russians messed with the Finns, they would get their asses handed to them

Winter War 2

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Per capita, Finland is arguably the most militarized country in Europe.

More MBT’s than Germany, more artillery than the UK and soon to have 65 F-35’s in a country with the population of BC.

Why are they so militarized? Just look at their neighbour, and it ain’t Sweden.

Which brings up another point - beyond their significant military strength is their tactical and strategic location.  If nato builds up forces in that area now it's just part of 'nato',  so they can invest in new nato surveillance systems and if threatened nato can position fast strike forces there for attack, it essentially turns the country into an advanced nato base right on the border of Russia.

If Poutine wanted to make things SAFER for russia by invading ukraine... that did not turn out the way he wanted it to. Definitely a loss there.

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Which brings up another point - beyond their significant military strength is their tactical and strategic location.  If nato builds up forces in that area now it's just part of 'nato',  so they can invest in new nato surveillance systems and if threatened nato can position fast strike forces there for attack, it essentially turns the country into an advanced nato base right on the border of Russia.

If Poutine wanted to make things SAFER for russia by invading ukraine... that did not turn out the way he wanted it to. Definitely a loss there.

NATO is a defensive alliance and Finland is quite capable of looking after itself until the cavalry arrives. Permanently basing NATO troops in Finland would be an unnecessary provocation. During the Cold War, Canada used to do exercises involving rapidly moving troops to Europe and fighters to Bodo Norway.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Which brings up another point - beyond their significant military strength is their tactical and strategic location.  If nato builds up forces in that area now it's just part of 'nato',  so they can invest in new nato surveillance systems and if threatened nato can position fast strike forces there for attack, it essentially turns the country into an advanced nato base right on the border of Russia.

NATO is ultimately a maritime force

the arm of decision is at sea

Alfred Thayer Mahan's Eternal Seapower has the Eurasian tyrants surrounded

so the dominant position from Finland is actually on the Baltic

the Gulf of Finland being point blank to St. Petersburg

then in the north, Finland puts NATO point blank to the bulk of the Russian navy in Murmansk

he who rules the waves rules the world

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

NATO is a defensive alliance

that is not actually what the 1949 Washington Treaty states

the NATO treaty states that NATO will defend & uphold the UN Charter, International law & the laws of armed conflict

Article 5 states that an attack against one is an attack against all

but there is no requirement for Article 5 to be invoked before NATO can take action

NATO reserves the right to go on the offensive as necessary to preempt an adversary

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

NATO is ultimately a maritime force

Russia is ultimately a land mass.  And being surrounded by nato won't help them sleep at night.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Russia is ultimately a land mass.  And being surrounded by nato won't help them sleep at night.

the Kremlin has chosen the path of aggressive war against NATO by proxy or otherwise

it is not NATO's role to help them sleep at night

it is NATO's role to be so terrifying an adversary

that the Russians wouldn't dare cross the Trace under any circumstance

Peace Through Strength

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

that is not actually what the 1949 Washington Treaty states

the NATO treaty states that NATO will defend & uphold the UN Charter, International law & the laws of armed conflict

Article 5 states that an attack against one is an attack against all

but there is no requirement for Article 5 to be invoked before NATO can take action

NATO reserves the right to go on the offensive as necessary to preempt an adversary

Article 5 is the only one that obligates members to go to war.

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Article 5 is the only one that obligates members to go to war.

again, that's not actually the case

all members of NATO are bound by international law & the laws of armed conflict

most importantly, United Nations Article 51

now, many members of the UN General Assembly might ignore their obligations therein

but if you are a NATO member, you have signed up to defend Article 51

so if an aggressor such as Russia, launches into an illegal war of total annihilation against Ukraine

it is actually UN Article 51 which demands that NATO come to Ukraine's aid

NATO is over the Trace on the offensive in Ukraine

but rightly so, in the face of the Kremlin in violation of the UN Charter

Edited April 16, 2023 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Kremlin has chosen the path of aggressive war against NATO by proxy or otherwise

And it just got harder for them to do that.

If you're going to pretend that their national security isn't an issue for them or that having what they percieve to be a hostile force on their border isn't a matter of national security.  then fine, but please don't claim you know anything about military politics any further. you'd have to be 7 different kinds of stupid not to know that.

[Aristides]

UN Article 51 requires Security Council approval. Never happen with Russia's veto.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

UN Article 51 requires Security Council approval.

also not the case

no UNSC resolution is required to invoke Article 51

every country has the right to invoke self defence

all NATO members are bound to come to their aid, by the UN Charter