Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also rolled into Czechoslovakia in 1968.

And handed Varna and teh surrounding Area to its friends on Bulgaria, along with the entire of Moldova to USSR and becoming part of Ukraine, even though they hate Russia (USSR) and fought against them in WW2. Apparently the west shouldnt be invovled in Moldova either
 
I agree completely, but Russia still remembers that it was invaded by a European army and lost 20 million people, so go tell them that.

What about that time the soviets invaded Poland, the Baltics, and Finland (winter war anyone?).

You can't have it both ways, both aggressively attacking when it suits, and then justifying aggressively attacking for defensive purposes when that suits instead.

I really don't get what you're trying to prove here with any of this. There is no valid justification for Russia invading Ukraine, no matter what the US did or didn't do, or the Russian perception of losing their grip on the eastern European states they held back economically for many years.

I don't think anyone is going to agree that Russia has any truly valid concerns, all they're doing is forcing countries to band together more tightly against them, boost military spending, and adding more members to NATO on the border with Russia.

If you're going back historically speaking, the Russians have a long and storied past of imperialism and expansion, which is precisely what this is.
 
Last edited:
NATO minus the US still has a population of 600 million people, if those countries funded their militaries at an appropriate level they absolutely should have nothing to fear from Russia, a country with a quarter of the population.

NATO works because everyone brings something to the party. The US brings logistics amongst many other things like its sheer military might. Do you think Europe stands firm for Ukraine without the US front and centre? Does it hell. Do you think Russia is afraid to challenge NATO countries like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia without America having their backs? Do you think those nations would feel secure without America in NATO? The answer to that question is no.
 
Maybe you could just make your point instead of asking questions, obviously not
So I'm not allowed to ask a question? Maybe you could just answer, its not a complex question. Do you think population size is what dictates defence spending, yes or no?
 
Last edited:
What about that time the soviets invaded Poland, the Baltics, and Finland (winter war anyone?).

You can't have it both ways, both aggressively attacking when it suits, and then justifying aggressively attacking for defensive purposes when that suits instead.

I really don't get what you're trying to prove here with any of this. There is no valid justification for Russia invading Ukraine, no matter what the US did or didn't do, or the Russian perception of losing their grip on the eastern European states they held back economically for many years.

I don't think anyone is going to agree that Russia has any truly valid concerns, all they're doing is forcing countries to band together more tightly against them, boost military spending, and adding more members to NATO on the border with Russia.

If you're going back historically speaking, the Russians have a long and storied past of imperialism and expansion, which is precisely what this is.

I'm typing very clearly that this isn't my view, I'm struggling to respond to posts where I say this is the view of the Russians, and then I get a detailed post explaining why that view is wrong. It doesn't change the fact it is their view. Do you understand that? Like, why are you arguing with me? If you want to suggest that the Russians actually don't have that view then fine
 
Last edited:
Why do we care what their view is? we can't understand them because we wouldn't be doing what they are, they have a different mindset to us.

Why are you trying so hard to put yourself into their shoes?

Also not sure how you can be so certain what their views or opinions really are, because probably more than half of what they say is made up lies.
 
Last edited:
What about that time the soviets invaded Poland, the Baltics, and Finland (winter war anyone?).

You can't have it both ways, both aggressively attacking when it suits, and then justifying aggressively attacking for defensive purposes when that suits instead.

I really don't get what you're trying to prove here with any of this. There is no valid justification for Russia invading Ukraine, no matter what the US did or didn't do, or the Russian perception of losing their grip on the eastern European states they held back economically for many years.

I don't think anyone is going to agree that Russia has any truly valid concerns, all they're doing is forcing countries to band together more tightly against them, boost military spending, and adding more members to NATO on the border with Russia.

If you're going back historically speaking, the Russians have a long and storied past of imperialism and expansion, which is precisely what this is.


USSR literally switched sides after Germany invaded, but thats ok - enemy of my enemy is now my friend!

So m,uch was Churchills hatred of Communism, he strongly advocated for troops to land in the Balkans from Italy , to get there before the soviets did.
 
Maybe you could just make your point instead of asking questions, obviously not

I'm explaining the Russian point of view, it's not me justifying it.

Maybe you could make your point rather than repeating the twisted views of Russians that you can’t justify.
 
Last edited:
NATO works because everyone brings something to the party. The US brings logistics amongst many other things like its sheer military might. Do you think Europe stands firm for Ukraine without the US front and centre? Does it hell. Do you think Russia is afraid to challenge NATO countries like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia without America having their backs? Do you think those nations would feel secure without America in NATO? The answer to that question is no.

NATO grew (and quickly) from the Treaty of Dunkirk, in March 1947 , followed by the Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance and the Treaty of Brussels in March 1948 (and the soviet land grab between the 2 dates). NATO was formed when smaller countries realised what was happening and banded together.
 
Why are you banging on about WW2? Nothing you post changes the fact that Russia was invaded and lost 20 million people, of course they view themselves as victims of Nazi aggression, irrespective of what we think or what happened prior to that.
Total deaths for the Soviet Union were about 27m. The Russian SFSR lost around 6.5m military dead and around the same number in civilians or about 13% of the reported population. Belarus bore the worst of Nazi war crimes by far as a share population losing around a quarter of it’s population, followed by Ukraine at around 16%.
 
So to not defend the indefensible one must become a Russian whisperer?

Amazing that a white guy from the north of the UK is mansplaining how the ruskies feel.

I think it's useful to understand the oppositions points even if you disagree with them. Crazy notion on here I know
 

USSR literally switched sides after Germany invaded, but thats ok - enemy of my enemy is now my friend!

So m,uch was Churchills hatred of Communism, he strongly advocated for troops to land in the Balkans from Italy , to get there before the soviets did.

The allies refused to supply the Communist partisans until fairly late in the war. It was only when the cetniks were exposed as bloody useless that policy changed.

Tito was a sneaky bugger, and nobody's fool, so I'm not sure any move to keep the Communists from power had a reasonable chance of success.

Fitzroy MacLean's Eastern Approaches is a good book for background on this.
 
Another crazy notion is when your lack of knowledge-but-have-an-opinion is called out, you literally ignore it. Reminds me of another, now banned, poster....

Yeah, he went strangely silent and didn't respond when I stated the Budapest Memorandum specifically states we and the USA must help Ukraine when faced with a nuclear threat (which they were / are).
 
Alsow, while at risk of going slightly more off-topic, it's worth considering that a large portion of the "How" Russia came to lose over 20million people in the war probably have very similar parallels to why they continue to loose hundreds of men every day in Ukraine now.

Their "tactics" are laughable. It's a zerg rush. It's always been a zerg rush. It's how they fight. Try to overwhelm the enemy with numbers.
Good luck achieving anything substantial using human waves. Tried that in WW 1, how that work out?

Difference in the actual frontline losses on eastern front in WW 2 is not that large if you add up germany and its allies vs soviets. And by end of war, when those numbers - soviet industrial production established advantage in military equipment - started to show, losses were close to 1:1.

Do not forget that Nazi Germany had institutionalised orders to reduce population in eastern territories. That included direct killing, starving, using civilians and prisoners of war as slave disposable labor force.
This was exposed in Nurenberg trials. Huge losses were not [only] collateral damage or human wave tactics. They were result of actual genocide.

I know you want to diminish russians. But please don't shift the blame on them for the greatest military crime ever committed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom