[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

All of the US/western sources on the war have been horribly one sided. A job well done by US/NATO administration!.

Latest Example, what actually happened:




What is reported in a "prestigious independent news source"

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

@ Goacom, Thank you for the clarification. I wanted to put across a contrary point of view. Please consider the rationale once.
When did we start believing that a 200K fighting force will quickly subdue ( in 3 flat days LOL ) a 260K Regular army which has been smarting from the loss of Crimea in 2014? Why do we forget that NATO has been training the Ukranians all this while? Why do we think that Russia wanted to capture Kiev with a 60-80K force when they left around 100K in Donbass?

Thats a very valid point, waiting for a logical answer.

Originally Posted by Slick

Ukraine army has reached Russian border near Kharkiv.

Mr President, We Made It

Courtesy NDTV & Twitter.

If this is true (as it is a video of soldiers declaring the above line) then the western media has not been off by a lot. Sure they are biased and hoping for Russia to lose but not completely off. In the coming days this should get fact checked.

- Slick

I saw that video, I also saw this earlier video of the same soldiers carrying a border post that they were later posing with:




Obviously no news source would publish this video above, its from a Russian Twitter handle which will be suspended soon for "breach of Policy".

[Arun Varma]

This entire miserable war is a telling story of greed, paranoia and expansionism - on both sides. The only real sufferers are the soldiers of the two armies and the civilian population of Ukraine in the short term and everyone who is economically tied to these countries, in the long run! In many ways, this is a war of the west's making as much as it is of Putin's paranoia and avarice! It is also a showcase to the hypocrisy of the west! On one hand, they pressure countries like India into severing links with Russia while on the other, they continue to be economically dependent on Russia in so many ways. On one hand, the US and its allies have waged senseless (righteous according to them) wars decimating entire civilisations in the Middle East and elsewhere while on the other hand, they deplore Putin's actions as genocidal!

What I am most apprehensive is considering how totalitarian Putin is and considering his stockpile of Nukes, pushing him to a corner is only likely to make this a lot worse.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

@ Goacom, Thank you for the clarification. I wanted to put across a contrary point of view. Please consider the rationale once.
When did we start believing that a 200K fighting force will quickly subdue ( in 3 flat days LOL ) a 260K Regular army which has been smarting from the loss of Crimea in 2014? Why do we forget that NATO has been training the Ukranians all this while? Why do we think that Russia wanted to capture Kiev with a 60-80K force when they left around 100K in Donbass?

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Thats a very valid point, waiting for a logical answer.

The explanation here is very simple, the Russians expected to overrun Kyiv with firepower, not troops. While the Russians only deployed about as many troops as the entire professional army of Ukraine, they had atleast a couple of times more tanks, fighter jets, artillery etc. Also, the Russian propaganda machine was pretty much convinced that the Ukrainians wouldn’t fight back and that most Ukrainians didn’t even see themselves as a country but rather as an extension of Russia. See, that’s the problem with propaganda, eventually you’ll start believing your own lies.

Also, the Russian’s had precedent to believe that they can overrun Kyiv with superior firepower. During both the Gulf war and US invasion of Iraq, the actual troops deployed by the US was only a fraction of the size of the Iraqi army.

It can always be tricky to figure out who won or lost in a war especially those in which both sides have made some gains, the Pakistanis still claim they won the 1971 war because West Pakistan wasn’t captured by India but then capturing West Pakistan was never India’s goal. India’s goal was to liberate East Pakistan and it did exactly that and hence won that war.

Russia NEVER stated at the beginning of the invasion that its goals were limited as you claim, infact their explicitly stated goal was to ‘denazify Ukraine’. This stated goal changed only when they realised they aren’t gonna get anywhere near Kyiv. Even a kid will understand that Russia and it supporters are just trying to save face here by changing their stated goals. This also reminds me of the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, keep changing goals to save face (albeit while losing way less troops).

Originally Posted by Foxbat

I saw that video, I also saw this earlier video of the same soldiers carrying a border post that they were later posing with:

Simple explanation, the Russians literally rolled over that border, so offcourse they removed all the border posts. So, the Ukrainians basically have to re-erect these. Or has the Kremlin said otherwise?

[Poitive]

Folks, like many I too have had a rough impression about Finland and Sweden being neutral+non-aligned. Though I had some doubts, I never really checked properly. While there is material available to argue that they are and also that they are not so, after some reading I am inclined to believe that they can't really be seen as non-aligned since the cold war.

Am sharing some parts which I came across which say or suggest that they have not been non-aligned/neutral, while focused on the post cold-war era. Some arguments are more convincing then others.

- The quotes below need not be in the order they appear in the source.
- Am also quoting some generally interesting bits not pertaining specifically to the above topic.

Between Military Non-Alignment and Integration
PDF link at: https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/public...and-and-sweden
Direct PDF link: https://www.swp-berlin.org/publicati...25_etz_opt.pdf
April 2015

The principle of military non-alignment is firmly embedded in Sweden’s and Finland’s security culture. Nonetheless, since the end of the Cold War, the two countries’ security policy has been strongly oriented towards participation in international crisis missions under EU and NATO command. As both countries are also increasingly integrated in NATO’s cooperation structures and support the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), this supposed military non-alignment is looking increasingly doubtful.

Finland:
...In particular, the fact that Finland’s allies changed several times during the Second World War...

...This is partly due to Finland’s specific geostrategic position close to the Kola Peninsula, used by Russia as a key military base...

...the number of active reserve troops has been cut from 350,000 in 2012
to 230,000 today, and although Finland still ranks among the top one-third in Europe with its defence budget, amounting to around 1.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), spending on military equipment has halved since 1990...

Sweden:
...Russian combat aircraft have repeatedly entered Swedish airspace, and there is a suspicion that in October 2014, a Russian submarine entered Swedish waters. According to Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, the Swedish people are genuinely fearful of Russia once more...

In recent years, both countries have progressively moved closer to NATO, and the expansion of this cooperation is now gaining new topicality. Sweden and Finland are already regarded as close allies and very active non-members. A strong message was sent by the signing of Host Nation Support Agreements, after long preparations, during the NATO Summit in Wales on 5 September
2014. These agreements enable the two countries to benefit from NATO’s support in crisis situations. The Summit also established the Partnership Interoperability Initiative. Sweden and Finland are among
the small number of candidates for the third and final stage of this Initiative, known as the Enhanced Opportunities Program (EOP),...


...While NATO itself is interested in more intensive cooperation with Sweden and Finland, some members – especially the Baltic states – fear that the principle of collective self-defence under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty will be weakened and ultimately undermined if the Alliance
increasingly involves non-members...

They are actively committed to deepened military integration in the long term too, for example through their participation in the EU’s Nordic Battle Group, a seven country-strong regional contribution to the EU’s crisis management capability. The Battle Group has been placed under Swedish command – for the third time – for the first six months of 2015.

NATO membership for Finland and Sweden is an unlikely scenario at present. In both countries, such a step would require a political consensus, a formal review of its implications, and a referendum, all of which would involve lengthy lead-in times

{Note: Google Map link to Kola Peninsula: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ko...,35.8906532,5z)
.

What non-alignment? Finland’s security and defence policy stems from partnerships
Link: https://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/f...tnerships?read
Link to pdf: https://www.fiia.fi/wp-content/uploa...nalignment.pdf
November 2017

In fact, and crucially, Finnish security and defence policy has changed substantially over the last few years, although the official description has remained intact. It is somewhat doubtful whether the scope of the change is understood in Finland, let alone internationally. Hence, it is important to spell out the change, which is precisely what this briefing paper aims to do.

...At the same time, the waning of Finnish military non-alignment has further accelerated. Finland has consistently removed the legal impediments that have restricted its room for manoeuvre in security and defence...

Finnish defence cooperation with the United States is ground-breaking. Helsinki has moved closer to Washington both politically and militarily. Conducting exercises with the military superpower sends a strong strategic signal...

...indicates that Finland is neither neutral nor military non-aligned since, by virtue of being a member of the European Union (EU), it has international responsibilities, such as the mutual assistance clause of the Lisbon Treaty, which are incompatible with the idea of military non-alignment, not to speak of neutrality...

In NATO’s 2014 landmark summit in Wales, Finland was among the five partner nations that the alliance identified as Enhanced Opportunities Partners. In practice,... enabled Finland’s early involvement in planning NATO’s major exercises such as high visibility Trident Juncture...

Moreover, Finland and Sweden were the only partner nations that participated in NATO’s annual Crisis Management Exercise in 2016 and 2017, in which the Alliance rehearsed its political-military decision-making in a fictitious Article 4 and Article 5 crisis scenario...

At the summit in Wales, Finland and NATO signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Host Nation Support (HNS), helping to facilitate close cooperation between Helsinki and the Atlantic Alliance, not only in peacetime, but also in a time of crisis....It nonetheless applies to all NATO military activities, not only training and exercises, but also military missions.

The CSDP has gained momentum of late and the EU is, for example, about to activate the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), which is primarily intended to bolster defence capabilities, invest in shared projects, and increase operational readiness of member state’s armed forces... In its security policy parlance, Finland underscores the importance of the Lisbon Treaty’s defence and solidarity clauses.

As the different forms of cooperation have advanced, the need for facilitative frameworks has become more urgent. Helsinki has signed various memoranda and statements with different capitals – most notably with Washington but also with London and Berlin. For instance, Finland signed a framework agreement with the United Kingdom in 2016 and, subsequently, joined the British-led Joint Expeditionary framework in 2017. Furthermore, Finland has also signed a Framework Agreement with Germany, and is willing to participate in the German-led Framework Nation Concept initiative.

...Finland’s cooperation with the United States has recently advanced in leaps and bounds, which can almost be seen as a ground-breaking development given Finland’s post-World War II circumspection of collaborating with great powers...

...US interests in Europe began to grow, and in 2014 it launched the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), now known as the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI). Through the ERI, the US started to allocate resources for enhancing European security. The Trump administration has continued to pursue this line...

Note: CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy)

The CSDP involves the deployment of military or civilian missions to preserve peace, prevent conflict and strengthen international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Military missions are carried out by EU forces established with secondments from the member states' armed forces. The CSDP also entails collective self-defence amongst member states[a] as well as a Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in which 25 of the 27 national armed forces pursue structural integration.

Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common...Defence_Policy

Lisbon Treaty:

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement that amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU).

Wikipedia Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment
Link: https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-bildt-2018-10
October 2018

By Carl Bildt

"Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and prime minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations."

Massive NATO exercises in Norway this fall will include forces from two key non-NATO countries: Sweden and Finland. With no time to waste, Scandinavia is finally breaking fully with the Cold-War era doctrine of neutrality, and embracing a more prudent and proactive defense policy.

Having debarked from ports in western Sweden, military convoys from various NATO countries are crowding Swedish streets and prompting the police to issue traffic warnings. They are on their way to Norway, where some 50,000 soldiers, airmen, and seamen will come together for NATO’s largest military exercise in years. The operation – “Trident Juncture” – has a clear goal: to demonstrate the alliance’s ability to defend Norway against a foreign aggressor.

There is no need to name the potential aggressor. Obviously, it is not Sweden or Finland, both of which have contributed soldiers to the exercise....

But, of course, it was always a charade. The Soviet Union had recruited enough high-level assets in the Swedish government to know about its secret ties to the West. Whatever the Swedish people were led to believe about their country’s neutrality, the Soviets knew it was a lie. Now the ruse is over: full-scale military integration with NATO is in the offing.

Nevertheless, with Trident Juncture, Swedes will see a Swedish-led brigade (comprising Swedish and Finnish units) join with NATO forces in a large-scale defense drill. They will witness the extent to which the Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian air forces are already integrated. And they will watch as Finland leads naval exercises in the Baltic Sea.

To be sure, today’s mobilization is not driven by an acute threat from Russia. But Russia’s aggressive effort to modernize its military all but requires the West to increase its own defense capacity in the region. We need to send a clear message that opportunistic acts of aggression will be answered, both now and in the future.

I too have found some issues with the above articles, but overall found them helpful to understand things better. One's mileage might vary.

Some other articles on the subject:
(In my 'might read' list)

From neutrality to non-alignment (10.4.2019)
Link: https://tahdistolehti.fi/from-neutrality/

Pro-American non-alignment. Sweden and Finland develop closer military co-operation with the United States (2016-04-01)
Link: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje...develop-closer

Ambiguous alliance: Neutrality, opt-outs, and European defence (28 June 2021)
Link: https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguou...opean-defence/

Notes/Thoughts

After reading the above and more in the past few days, I really don't think one can call Finland and Sweden as non-aligned or neutral in the post cold-war era. Though on paper they have claimed so and that might be repeated often to create the impression of neutrality. It is also worth reconsidering whether the current conflict is the reason for Finland and Sweden to (try to) join NATO.

NATO member or not, they were very much a part of the European Military Alliance, and that would have most of the desired deterrent effect on Russia, which was the major purpose.

My impression (and it is only an impression, but a reasoned one) is that the US and a few had managed to get Finland and Sweden as de-facto part of the alliance, while circumventing the political hurdles parties/groups might have in a democracy. The current conflict only likely changed the public opinion enough for it to be viable to officially a NATO member (and this, without a referendum).

PS: Phew! This took more time than I imagined, but at least I have notes ready for future conversations on the topic
Edit: A man can dream: Would it not be great if we worked collaboratively as one team adding to each other's understanding of a topic as vast and complex as geopolitics.

[download2live]

Originally Posted by Poitive

a topic as vast and complex as geopolitics.

I feel that closer one is to truth simpler things become. This is a simple case of might is right. Does not matter if we look at it from Ukraine point of view or from Russian point of view.

The end of cold war was due to ecomonic collapse of USSR. It was not a mutually agreed upon deal.

US played its card right but Putin was an unexpected factor in the scheme of things. Something executed very well turned out to be an unfinished business.

And politics fail infront of Geography. Russia after the disintegration of USSR still remained a big country with massive resources.

I see a future where it will be US leading the EU on one side and Russia China bloc on the other. India has a fine line to walk.

[Poitive]

Not written on this thread for a bit, so catching up.

Somewhat OT post.

Originally Posted by download2live

It works both the ways actually. Last Australian elections were an example. On media front labor had already won and elections were a formality . However when results came in labor party not only lost but also lost at some places where they had never lost....

Mate, an interesting example below. Newsweek had printed some with Hillary as President in 2016. Almost amusing to see these now.

Guardian


Available on Amazon. Likely a fake.

Links:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...beware-n690411
https://www.amazon.com/Newsweek-Pres.../dp/B01N03QGVS


That aside, my point was somewhat different. It wasn't about whether or not the media is right about things. It was about how it can be a part of shaping public opinion on various matters. Public opinion (at the very least in theory) is at the heart of a democracy. Democracies can be influenced by influencing public opinion: also beyond borders. For adversaries, or for partners; to get them to do things favourable to one's own cause (one of the cores of Foreign Policy).

Originally Posted by download2live

I feel that closer one is to truth simpler things become. This is a simple case of might is right.

Mate that is one way to see it. Additionally in the situation, one can also choose to ponder over, learn and see the many other layers, intricacies, influences, provocations, buildup of might, reactions to it, security, taxes, economics, history, lives, families, and so on; it is an endless list. My point here was that one can collaboratively add more to each other than the versus parts we see. (As an aside, I find seeing the 'Thanks' on posts interesting from a human psychology point of view; also personally avoid thanking impolite and 'versus' posts)

I also think that while in a metaphysical sense one might believe in a single ultimate truth, looking at things pragmatically, truth can he highly individual and subjective. Will avoid going into details as it would take the discussion further OT.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Poitive

NATO member or not, they were very much a part of the European Military Alliance, and that would have most of the desired deterrent effect on Russia, which was the major purpose.

My impression (and it is only an impression, but a reasoned one) is that the US and a few had managed to get Finland and Sweden as de-facto part of the alliance, while circumventing the political hurdles parties/groups might have in a democracy. The current conflict only likely changed the public opinion enough for it to be viable to officially a NATO member (and this, without a referendum).

Dear @Poitive,
Thank you for the significant research effort you have put in and shared for the benefit of our readers. Many who are new to the subject, relatively speaking, will learn more about all the nuances on this matter from your note.


All,
That Sweden and less so Finland were softly aligned with the West is a known fact for students of International Affairs. It isn't as if they were hiding this. I recall reading articles in the early 1970s debating Sweden's neutrality because they banned sale of arms to USA because of that country's involvement in the Vietnam war a factoid some may not know. Which raises the question what is neutrality? Neutrality is not being in a rigid cocoon. It is giving yourself (ie the nation) flexibility to stay strictly neutral or lean a bit this way or that depending on the situation. Just because Sweden allows NATO trucks to pass through its area onwards to a NATO exercise doesn't detract from their stand (till a few days ago) that we are not a part of NATO and don't want to get drawn into America's daft wars.

What would we call India - an American ally? or a Russian ally? We buy more arms from Russia but our Armed Forces exercise with America and never with Russia? We are neutral / non-aligned or as a large nation we are India-aligned :-) . Similarly Sweden followed a policy of armed neutrality not only through all of World War 1 and World War 2 but also the Cold War -no mean feat. Finland followed a similar path but maintained closer ties with the USSR understanding wisely that a NATOized Finland will invite retaliation from the USSR. Something Ukraine did not grasp and allowed itself to be led by American lies. In fact in WW2 Finland was neutral but pro-Germany!

As most of you know better than me everything in geo-politics is only shades of grey. On this thread too many see it only as black and white like supporting rival IPL teams.

The reason, IMHO as mentioned in an earlier post, why Sweden and Finland are seeking NATO membership is that till 1991 in the USSR they had a wise potential enemy. Today in Putin they have an unpredictable, solus dictator acting (it seems to us from the outside) without checks and balances of a governing system. In my eyes at least Russia and Russians should not be equated with Putin. Russia is a great nation and Russians are clever competent and friendly people. Putin is a bad deal which that great nation does not deserve.

A point missed by many in India is that our abstaining from the UNO votes was not so much a vote in favour of Russia as it was a message to America (and the West) that we are our own masters and act as per our interests and do not always share your world view. Unlike the USSR of yore Putin has not proved to be as great friend of India as the Soviet Premiers were. Fortunately our MEA understands this aspect very well.

Thank you for reading.

Footnote: The "join NATO" story has just begun. Erdogan has his very valid points. His story is another example of white NATO not being cognizant of the security needs & real threats of a brown NATO member. The West ignored and acted against Russia's security needs, they tried to ignore India's assessment of its security needs and now they do it to their own NATO member - the one they refuse to pull into the EU!. While Erdogan is no saint on this my sympathies are with him. One favour Putin has unknowingly gifted to the world through this war is to cause Western hypocrisy and duplicitousness to stand naked and be known to the common man through social media.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Dear @Poitive,
Thank you for the significant research effort you have put in and shared for the benefit of our readers....

1. That Sweden and less so Finland were softly aligned with the West is a known fact for students of International Affairs. It isn't as if they were hiding this.

2. Just because Sweden allows NATO trucks to pass through its area onwards to a NATO exercise doesn't detract from their stand (till a few days ago) that we are not a part of NATO and don't want to get drawn into America's daft wars.

3. What would we call India - an American ally? or a Russian ally?

4. The reason, IMHO as mentioned in an earlier post, why Sweden and Finland are seeking NATO membership is that till 1991 in the USSR they had a wise potential enemy. Today in Putin they have an unpredictable, solus dictator acting (it seems to us from the outside) without checks and balances of a governing system. In my eyes at least Russia and Russians should not be equated with Putin

5. Footnote: The "join NATO" story has just begun. Erdogan has his very valid points. His story is another example of white NATO not being cognizant of the security needs & real threats of a brown NATO member.

Dear @V.Narayan, I'm happy to have done that. Working in the spirit of mutually adding to each others points of consideration can be fruitful; as have many of your posts I read on this thread, which I have appreciated both for the content, and also very much for the eloquent manner.

In the same spirit, adding some points which I find useful to consider for the readers at large. To understand things from another perspective, it might be useful to see things as a broader military and security grouping and alliance, than restrict to formal NATO membership alone.

1. What I tried to communicate wasn't about hiding, but that though the many articles, news and views we hear are about how they are neutral and non-aligned, they were participating in the overall structure of military and security as a grouping with the West (US/NATO/EU). That they were more aligned to the West since the end of the Cold War. I believe they need a vote from their parliament to change their official position of being Neutral in NATO. (link: http://nato.gov.si/eng/topic/nationa...ral-countries/ )

Sweden's Ex-PM Carl Bildt's commentary in the link are worth reading.

2. It might be worth considering Sweden's part in the military and security structure of beyond just the passage of troops. Further, as a poor example: one might find it hard to justify to China that we are non-aligned/neutral if we carried out exercises with a block of it's known military adversaries/threats in it's neighbourhood.

While my readings were focused on Finland, there is much on Sweden too in the articles linked. While not being a part of NATO, they still get ample choice to not be a part of American wars, they do get much of the benefit from the security provided by the West - a good position to be in, which is set to change on their joining NATO. Once again the US is a winner and another country potentially losing when seen in wider timespans. (#part-of-daft-American-wars).

American Foreign Policy folks should be complimented to make counties find it viable to follow what suits the US interests; by them being in positions where the immediate interest of decision makers of the "target country" becomes such, that it aligns with the long-term interests of the US. They are quite the masters at that.

3. IMO, India was much aligned to the Soviet side, while the Soviet Union existed. After it was disbanded, and Russia was weak, the US became a big influencer and has been increasing it's influence with success ever since. We are in a phase of transition.

Not sure how many realize that we became a West-like free market from the somewhat Soviet like centralized command soon after the Soviet Union disbanded.

Like most countries, we too work based on what is of our national interest. For some neutrality and non-alignment was of national interest, whereas for some, it was to be a part of one of the groupings.

After the Cold War ended, and then the Soviet Union got disbanded, the term ally has gradually changed meaning, as Foreign Policy, which really works on interests than emotions like 'friendship' (addressed in my earlier posts) demands a more flexible approach, with countries needing to and find it viable to keep their eggs in different baskets.

4. Besides Putin (who really came to power about 10-12 years after the end of the Cold War, in 2000) it might be worth considering how the interests of the countries changed after the Soviet Union was disbanded.

Till ~1989 both the USA and Russia/Soviets were strong. With the position Finland (and to an extent Sweden and lesser so Norway) were in, it made sense to not a side against one, especially if it was a neighbour, to the extent viable (it wasn't viable for some counties).

Let us realize that when a political entity like the USSR breaks, it leads to huge challenges. Besides the obvious change in power structure etc, it also means raw material access, markets, families etc - all are distributed in various states, which are now foreign countries. That of course made Russia immensely vulnerable and weak in comparison to the USSR; even more so after the Regan years, when the US got more aggressive.

In this changed scenario, how do the interests of countries align, especially with a somewhat unstable Russia (cabinet/politburo or not, at such a stage a country is unstable) and one with huge military capacity? I would imagine the balance cautiously tilting towards the West while having a wait-and-watch policy to see how things go for a while before committing. I suppose that is what has happened over the years.

What we are blaming on Putin and the current status of the power structure (which is half unknown and half known via vested-western-media), might actually be only a matter of how interests align due to the asymmetry in power between the old superpower-foes. Give or take a bit (years and intensity) most of the tilt of Finland and Sweden we see might have happened whether it was Putin or anyone else at the helm (unless of course "West-favouring leader", which would change the situation, as it may in the coming years).

5. I had vaguely followed the said attempted coup in 2016 in Turkey. What I recollect from that time (and it just might be inaccurate) is that in the name of the attempted coup against him, Erdogan gave himself more powers. Some said that it was to counter the US trying to bring in Fethullah Gulen to some sort of power (another regime change?). Gulen has been a power centre and has "self-exiled" himself in the US and it was said that he is America's Turkish man.

It might not be a case of White or Brown, but simply a case of US interest and their lack of trust in Ergodan given the history. Since the "coup attempt", Turkey has moved away from the West and somewhat closer to to Russia in some ways.

PS: The long posts on the thread have taken more than reasonable time from my end. I might take a bit of a break on the thread, at least from long posts; though collaborative understanding is always tempting, as above.

[Foxbat]

The greatest Freudian slip of all time?



Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ge...ne-11652927748

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-brutal.html

'The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia, and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq,' Bush said, before shaking his head and correcting himself. 'I mean, of Ukraine.'

Critics have called America's 2003 preemptive invasion of Iraq, which Bush ordered, both unjustified and brutal, and it is widely considered a major stain on his presidency.

The war was premised on claims that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, though no WMD stockpiles or programs were ever discovered.

Claims from the Bush administration that Hussein had an operational relationship with al Qaeda also turned out to be false.

US involvement in the Iraq War dragged out until 2011, and 4,825 coalition troops were killed. Many tens of thousands of Iraqis died as the conflict evolved into an insurgency and bloody civil war.

Bush's remarks drew immediate mockery from his critics, who rushed to agree with his accidental assessment of the Iraq War.

'At least he finally admits the Iraq invasion was unjustified,' one Twitter user wrote.

[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The explanation here is very simple, the Russians expected to overrun Kyiv with firepower, not troops. While the Russians only deployed about as many troops as the entire professional army of Ukraine, they had atleast a couple of times more tanks, fighter jets, artillery etc.
Also, the Russian’s had precedent to believe that they can overrun Kyiv with superior firepower. During both the Gulf war and US invasion of Iraq, the actual troops deployed by the US was only a fraction of the size of the Iraqi army.

Dear Dragracer, Thanks for sharing your views on this. I wanted to share some contrary thoughts on this. For the US invasion of Iraq, there was an air bombing campaign of weeks which basically destroyed Iraqi cities and made them inhabitable and killed thousands of civilians. That was one of the key factors that led to ISIS getting the support it got in the local population. US was not worried about the consequences because Iraq was half way across the globe.

Now coming to Northern Ukraine/Kiev, that kind of sustained air campaign and use of fire power was not on display. That's probably for a few different reasons. Now the big underlying assumption here is that the Russian state is rational. In case you believe that Russia state is one man and that Mr. Putin is a blood thirsty demon, please stop reading here.

1. Ukraine is right next door to Russia. You don't want to destroy your neighbour and make it stateless because then that country usually becomes home to all kind of extremist tendencies.
2. Many Russians and Ukranians still have some fondness for each other. So indiscriminate damage would make Putin & the state less popular.
3. Russians would want to settle this issue in a way that the borders stay stable. So they wanted somebody who can signoff the Ukrainian territorial concessions like Crimea & Donbas which are no doubt coming.

Russia may have hoped for a regime change by lieu of internal revolt but they definitely were not looking to do it by taking over Kiev militarily by pulverizing it with Fire power. They were also not looking to overrun it with troops. It was most likely a deception which worked reasonably well. I also believe that Russians had local support in the south. The Ukrainians blew up many bridges on the north to stop Russian advances. If they had done the same to bridges in the south that connected Kherson and Donbas to Crimea, the rapid advances that happened in the south would not have happened. I think the Ukrainian command took their eye of the south & the east.

I think Russia will probably do what the Ukrainians did in the North now. They are going to blow up bridges and try to arrive at a more defensible line which uses natural obstacles like rivers which will make any counter attacks difficult. I also believe that they will retreat in some areas to the closest natural obstacle.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

It can always be tricky to figure out who won or lost in a war especially those in which both sides have made some gains, the Pakistanis still claim they won the 1971 war because West Pakistan wasn’t captured by India but then capturing West Pakistan was never India’s goal. India’s goal was to liberate East Pakistan and it did exactly that and hence won that war.

Pakistan lost the war because it lost half it's territory and more than 50% of it's population. This was a strategic defeat because of the loss of the territory and the economic implications.
Most educated people in Pakistan, especially the mainstream media publications understand what happened in 1971. An example in point.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1661203
I hope Ukraine is not reduced to a Rump state since that won't be ideal for Russian or European security. The big question now is whether Russia will go after Odessa or blockade Ukraine's access to Odessa. Hopefully all parties can come to a negotiated settlement that gives some access to black sea coastline for Ukraine.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by Poitive

Article: Finland’s leaders call for NATO membership ‘without delay’
...
Considering the above, sharing a few thoughts and questions that come to mind:

1. After Georgia and Ukraine, are we heading towards another border conflict to avoid a country joining NATO? (NATO disallows a country with an active conflict to join the military alliance).
   ...
2. An attack on some obscure/disputed part of the Finnish-Russian border just might be in the offing.
   ...
3. This further makes me wonder if Finland just might be lead down a path of an avoidable conflict like Ukraine was. It seems a lot less likely than was the case for Ukraine, but one never knows what all scenarios have been gamed for the longer term.
   .
4. From a strategic perspective of the US, drawing Russia into a conflict with a country sharing a 1340kms border and within close range of Saint Petersburg would appear advantageous, especially when Russia anyway has a lot of stress to it's system now, and one which might increase over time.
   .
5. As of now, it seems less likely that Russia will get drawn in, however this might be the next conflict around Russia which might build up over a decade or two, to further drain it - if Russia survives in it's current shape for as long. From a US perspective, a more pliant/suitable leader in Moscow might anyway change the need for such.

The above are contemplations and musings, not assertions.

Further, came across this news:

Putin parroted the veiled hypersonic missile threats in a tense phone call with Finland – and now appears to be putting his money where his mouth is.
...
The person behind the lens explained: “As soon as the president of Finland said they were joining NATO, a whole division of Iskanders, seven of them … is moving towards Vyborg.

“Looks like a new military unit is about to be formed in Vyborg or the region.

“All the equipment is new, Ural trucks are driving it. So get ready Finns, to join NATO.

“New Urals, seven Iskanders, looks like a new military unit is being formed – well done.”

The fearsome family of missiles are designed to hit targets at relatively short distances and are deployed against NATO forces.
...
The movement of the lethal missiles comes after Russia warned Finland and Sweden that their decision to join NATO was a “grave mistake with far-reaching consequences.”

Putin has warned of a “lightning fast” retaliation if the West directly intervenes in the Ukraine conflict.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the two Scandinavian countries “should have no illusions that we will simply resign ourselves to this”.

Source: https://www.news.com.au/world/europe...1fc6152e95b505

Also came across another one from April. Gives some context:


Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericteg...h=791cde415b04

I really hope another inducement to war isn't succeeding.

In a sense, I see US being the agressor; from behind the viel, if one can still say they have a viel. Aggression towards a much weaker country, ie Russia.

[skanchan95]

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky has announced his intention to build another MRIYA aircraft, dedicating this project to the memory of pilots who died in the war and, in particular, during the defense of Mariupol.

During an online meeting with Ukrainian students on Thursday, he recalled that at one time there was an idea to build a second copy of this unique aircraft.

"We wanted to build it, we needed $800 million. I appealed to the President of Turkey with a proposal to build the 2nd MRIYA, but we did not find the money," he said.

"But in this case, it's not a matter of money, it's a matter of ambition. We were approached by Ukroboronprom, the Antonov team. This is a question of the image of our country and all the excellent professional pilots who died in this war," Zelensky also said.

He called them "heroic people." "How much they have done, and today we can already say how many lives of people who remained in Mariupol, especially in Azovstal they saved ... How many pilots gave their lives to bring everything there, from weapons to water. And how many wounded they took from there. A large number of these people died heroically," the President said.

"To build a MRIYA for the sake of the memory of heroes is the right state position," Zelensky stressed.

The world's largest transport aircraft MRIYA was destroyed during the battles for the airport Gostomel at the end of February 2022.

An-225 MRIYA is an aviation giant, which holds records for the transportation of maximum commercial cargo and the longest and heaviest single-cargo in the history of aviation, carrying capacity.

Ukraine to build another Mriya : Zelensky

I hope one more of that superb and one of a kind aircraft gets built not only in the memory of the brave Ukrainian pilots who went down fighting in their flying machines but also because the Mriya was a part of a legacy of being the only aircraft in the world capable of executing those kind of missions.

[dragracer567]

Veteran Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev - a diplomat posted to Russia's mission to the United Nations in Geneva who had posted a statement on a LinkedIn account condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has resigned. News quoted below:

"For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year," Bondarev wrote, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. "The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire Western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country."

The post on LinkedIn lambasted Russia's leadership for corruption, saying, "Those who conceived this war want only one thing - to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this."

"I regret to admit that over all these twenty years the level of lies and unprofessionalism in the work of the Foreign Ministry has been increasing all the time. However, in most recent years, this has become simply catastrophic. Instead of unbiased information, impartial analysis and sober forecasting, there are propaganda clichés in the spirit of Soviet newspapers of the 1930s," the post read.

"Today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not about diplomacy. It is all about warmongering, lies and hatred. It serves interests of few, the very few people thus contributing to further isolation and degradation of my country. Russia no longer has allies, and there is no one to blame but its reckless and ill-conceived policy," the post continued.

Great to see good people standing up to Putin but I wonder what would be the consequences of this post. In a democratic country, you would probably get fired but what happens in Russia?

Meanwhile, the UK has claimed that Russia has lost around 15,000 troops in about 90 days of fighting in Ukraine - same as their entire death toll in Afghanistan. Even if you don't want to trust the British, I don't think it's possible to inflate the numbers by more than 50% - still a lot. This is just unsustainable no matter what Russia's objectives are. Russia itself hasn't updated its figures since March.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Meanwhile, the UK has claimed that Russia has lost around 15,000 troops in about 90 days of fighting in Ukraine - same as their entire death toll in Afghanistan.

I wonder how many troops Ukraine has lost according to UK claims.

Also according to US claims, NATO, the Free world.....

[Gansan]

If Russia is losing men and hardware in huge numbers, and Ukraine is losing scant numbers, that must mean the Ukrainians are winning the war. Then why is Russia gaining territory slowly but steadily?

Another thing. There are frequent reports from the Russian side about American and other western personnel - probably contractors or advisors - being captured or killed. It can't all be lies. But there is absolutely no news about them from the American side. Won't the family members enquire about their whereabouts? How can such issues be hushed up when you have a free press?