'Massive blow for Russian credibility': Sinking of warship a win for Ukraine
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
LVIV, Ukraine — Russia and Ukraine differed on the exact cause of the major explosion that sank a Russian battleship in the Black Sea on Thursday, but experts say there is no doubt that it's a massive blow to the Kremlin's pride and could undermine the country's naval operations in the region.
Ukrainian defense officials said their forces struck the Moskva, a cruiser, with two missiles. Russia said it was an internal munitions fire that forced the evacuation of the crew from its flagship in the Black Sea.
While Ukraine's military claimed the Russian ship leading the blockade of the Black Sea had capsized and was "sinking," Russia's defense ministry insisted it was towing the Moskva to port. The ministry admitted later Thursday, however, that the ship did sink in choppy waters as it was being towed.
"Due to damage to the hull received during the fire caused by the detonation of ammunition, the ship lost stability," the ministry said in a statement. "The ship sank in a stormy sea."
Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told MSNBC that the United States had confirmed an explosion on the vessel, but it was unable to confirm what had caused it. NBC News also has not verified what exactly occurred.
The Russian missile cruiser Moskva patrols in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015.Max Delany / AFP via Getty Images file
Either way, the damage to the Moskva was a "big blow to Russia," Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden's national security adviser, said in an interview at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Its loss is expected to have a major effect on Russia's naval ability going forward.
A Western official called the Moskva "an entirely legitimate target" and reiterated Sullivan's sentiment in a briefing to reporters that was given under the condition of anonymity.
Its loss was a "massive blow for Russian credibility," the official said, as it either showed that a ship with missile and air defense systems was vulnerable to attack or that the Russian military suffered a major accident. Either situation would put its competence in question.
Andrii Ryzhenko, a retired captain of the Ukrainian navy who served as the country's assistant minister of defense until 2020, called the Moskva "an immense symbol," as it has a long history in the Russian navy and shares its name with Moscow. He said its destruction was an "embarrassment" for the Russian military.
"She absolutely lost her ability to move and her energy supply and even partially sank, but not completely," he said by telephone Thursday. "She's currently afloat but significantly under the water. It seems the Russians are trying to tow her back to Sevastopol, but I don't think there is any repair possible."
Considering the amount of damage, he said, "it's probably easier just to build a new ship."
NBC News has not been able to verify his claims, but the Russian defense ministry later said the ship sank, which would leave Ryzhenko's recommendation as Russia's only option.
Ryzhenko said the Moskva was decades old and appeared to be somewhat outdated, but it remained a great power in the Black Sea.
It was an essential support and command vessel for Russia's military operations on the coast as its forces maintained a blockade of Ukrainian vessels, he said, adding that it also supported land units.
The ship was a major force when Russia took Crimea in 2014 and in its war with Georgia in 2008, he said.
"It's a shame for them because she was the most capable air defense platform, and she was killed only by two anti-ship missiles," Ryzhenko said.
Sidharth Kaushal, a research fellow at the London-based think tank Royal United Services Institute, echoed him regarding the significance of the loss of the Moskva.
Kaushal, an expert on sea power and maritime doctrine, said its absence from the Black Sea would mean Russia's entire naval force would be vulnerable to air attack.
Though Russia has comparable ships, Kaushal said, Turkey has closed the straits entering the Black Sea to "all belligerent warships," meaning no other naval vessels can move into the theater in support.
"So what they have there, they have to fight with," he said, explaining that the situation at sea is now riskier for Russia and opens up opportunities for Ukraine.
The war between Russia and Ukraine, however, is mainly on land, and that is where it is expected to be decided, he said.
Still, while the Moskva may not be a decisive victory, it has served as a significant boost to Ukrainian morale, he added.
Ryzhenko also noted that the ship was built in Ukraine's southern city of Mykolaiv, when the country was under the control of the then-Soviet Union. The city of the Moskva's origin has been repeatedly bombarded since Russia launched its invasion seven weeks ago.
That should serve as a lesson to Russia, Ryzhenko said.
"Don't shell the place you were born," he said. "But they did it, and they get this response."
The Moskva is also the same ship that famously forced the surrender of Ukraine's forces on Snake Island early in the invasion, according to Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych. Alleged video from the incident became a rallying cry.
The potential destruction of that ship is expected to be quite a boost to Ukraine's morale and was celebrated widely in the country. That is unlikely to be the case in Russia.
Russia's acknowledgment and the reasons it provided that the Moskva caught fire might also be considered a shameful moment for the Kremlin, Kaushal said.
"They have claimed that it was an ammunition loading failure, which doesn't sound much better," Kaushal said. "Either they were incompetent or they were hit — neither is a good thing, so it must be a blow for morale."
This smack to Russian morale also comes as the country gears up for a major offensive in east Ukraine and the U.S. prepares to provide $800 million in weapons and other assistance for Ukraine's defense.
Biden shared news of the package Wednesday after he discussed matters with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who said he was "sincerely grateful for the support."
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
Evening.. wonder if the captain went down with the sinking ship..🇺🇦🇺🇦
Q: What does a Russian warship have in common with a old, used prophylactic?
A: They’re both full of dead semen.
wasn't tough to spit out that one, cause the Captain's supposed to go down
like a$5 hooker in Chinatown, as he finds the steps to the subway, to meat Jarred
for a Christening of Russia's newest submarine, who's missiles torpedo and blow up the Russian improper propaganda, as the Champagne is served face to face by a bottle brokenn over the back of not saved face to expressly slow down the reactions when it explodes in ones face it, cause Putins hierarchy are in an, and watt does that say of the little one who our biggest fool did elevate and a tempt, to emulate..//
What you said.
Shit floats.
Perhaps too much gas in the intestines.
It was probably preferable to having to report to Putin that he managed to get his ship blown out from under him.
It was a major victory for the Ukraine.
We can remember back to when the Russians tried to take Snake Island. Will the world ever forget the threat of the Russians?
"I am a Russian warship, I ask you to lay down your arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed and unnecessary deaths. Otherwise, you will be bombed"
and that unforgettable response:
"Russian warship, go fuck yourself!"
Evening Vic...
Think those words will now go down in history...
Kind of like the words "I have not yet begun to fight!" by John Paul Jones.
Ukraine to Putin, "Hahaha! We sunk your battleship!"
Evening jbb....nothing like creating a new artificial reef... compliments of Russia...🇺🇦
Good Morning from The Bronx Shona! Goodday...
Evening..the Bronx as in New York??
Rather a co incidence we call the housing commission (public housing) across the road affectionately the Bronx..use to be a bad mob but over the years it has mellowed..maybe as they got older they got wiser...
I wonder what the Russian propagandists both in Russia and elsewhere will say to spin this one.
Evening Sandy..
Ummm all our rats left the sinking ship and for some reason it sank...🇺🇦🇺🇦
Good morning, Shona.
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when Putin got the news.
Me to..
Fair dinkum the gulags are going to be working flat out over there...or there will be a shortage of bullets if they line up failed military leaders and advisors and shooting them..can only hope..
Wonder what happened to the guy that told Putrid the news???
That guy? He got shipped to the front lines...
You won't be seeing that guy here anymore!
Sent to a front line infantry unit in Mariupol probably.
Yep, the sheer apoplexia would have indeed been a sight to behold.
Tough decision.
Either say that Russia's incompetent navy allowed one of its flag ships to be hit by a Ukrainian missile.
or
That Russia's UTTERLY incompetent navy accidently blew up one of their own flag ships.
Or accuse Ukraine, with US help, of infecting the sailors on the Moskva with some sort of engineered pathogen, forcing Russia to destroy it to save the world.
Noble Russia, evil moose and squirrel.
Sounds a little rocky, with extra Bull, but bore us
with more nay tosh.ao were the cold war warriors of my fractured fairy tail absent life that habitually kept me late, and leaving me feel tardy, over and overtly, cause Natasha was a planted subvert Ly that reminded me of the Russian NRA plant woman who was also bangin a Dem Rep or someone or other ....was it the California fornication proclamation dude, who briefly ran for Prez, who's name, like thoughtful things to say, escapes me when captured is my undivided attention that can span a tunnel while playing bridge to flip the trump Card that tunneled under any lows ive thus witnessed before the man whore Trump restablished the NO Rule can affect me, because i'm at a Barr lowered in Lower China, shopping at the market inn the reign, that a little putin hands didnt fail to grasp, as the bare wrestlin shirtless wonder about the ties, that bound Trump to the bed, where Russian Prostitutes pist upon Trumps head, till it swelled like a Macy's float thaty sunk us, a bit, and continues to lower US All, cause what in the Heavens could not be seen in the side by side Helsinki moment that didn't show US who it wasn't Charles in Charge, it was short of stature Master of Puppets, Puppet Master , James Hetfield style poetry reading For Whom the Bell Tolls, when Ride the Lightning, enpowers a feeble minded easily malleable minion who's pathetic opinioncan be changed in the blink of an eye from a blind guy wearing a mask, he can'tsee,...remeber, he's blind, but WHAT THE FCK happened to EVERYONE ELSES out of SIGHT.....out of mind.................................. yea, so ive often be told, but never
off 10 enuff
LOL i just watched that movie on tubi tv , leviathan from the 80s , same plot line .
sorry Sandy, i just mentioned similar thought before stumbling upon yours
Morning Sandy.. seems the Russians are saying the ship sank due to stormy seas..
I just had my first laugh of the morning..and that even the forces of mother nature were on the Ukrainian side...
Maybe Putin should take heed...
They should have targeted every boat within range and created a Russian Pearl Harbor.
It's a good bet they may have, but when the Moskva got hit, they said "Oh shit!" and got out of range as quick as possible.
A Pearl Harbor attack would be Ok but only 18 ships were sunk there. I would rather see an attack like the US did at Truck Lagoon where we sunk 50 ships.
I wonder if Joe will get on TV today and try to take credit for the ship sinking.
Take credit? I doubt it, even if it was a US bomb...
Possibly, but there is also a good bet Vicious Vlad will go on TV and try to pin some blame on the US for it as well.
Must rightwingers turn everything into an opportunity to take endless potshots at President Biden? Joe has just as much right to savor Ukraine sinking Russia's ship as everyone in the free world is today...
Evening Ed...I think that is pretty well a given the US will be blamed in some way..you mob more or less cop it for everything else around the world...though we are still flavour of the month with China...
But hell what a claim to fame!! I would be more than happy if it was one of our missiles (assuming we have them) and with our blessings..
To Russia with love ..
Just read that Putin has in fact already in a round about way blamed the US and warned the US to stop sending weaponry, including anti ship missiles to Ukraine or face dire consequences. Like we have not heard that already...
All I can say ,paraphrasing a brave man .
'RUSSIAN LEADER, RUSSIAN LEADER!
"GO F*** YOURSELF"
That will take a few days. They have to explain to him what a ship is.
According to reports from military experts (naval) the ship did fire cruise-type missiles into Ukraine and they thought without worry from counterfire, well that was a mistake. It was reported that all Russian ships in the Black Sea have moved further out to sea now. I think that may put a hole in the fire onboard excuse.
The British are supplying Ukraine with Harpoon anti-ship missiles it was reported a couple of days ago. Add those to the Neptunes that are indigenous weapons and the Russian navy will have a lot to worry about. Plus in the last US military package it was said there would be anti ship weapons in the package.
Go Ukraine.
Evening Kavika.. surely there must be some subs sloshing around that way doing manoeuvres that could accidentally push a wrong button and sink a few Russian ships...
Just like the other day when India accidentally lobbed a missile into Pakistan..
Could be another ooppss moment!!
Hi shona, yup that would be quite the spectacle.
time for putin to rethink any amphibious landings...
Very true, he better start worrying about losing any more ships since that is a main supply lane for the Russians.
Evening Devan...we can always send Ukraine some of our snappies (crocs)...Love water or land, they are always up for a free snack take away..we have got heaps and no maintenance required and low mileage...
crate them up and ship them to our senate in DC. half of it is already old rotting flesh.
Gday Shona. One thing you can say about snappies is they are equal opportunity predators and are not picky about their food.
LOL! I don't think that old rotting flesh would be very tasty!
The rest are Republicans.
here's another massive blow for russian credibility...
Please help me find the value added.
With that one, there never is any.
Yup Biden being a day late and a dollar short again. Also he seems like he is always following the lead of others. Even Boris Johnson has a bigger pair than Biden.
The Russians, with their obviously poor intelligence, have underestimated Ukranian military capability from day one to coin FDR of the phrase "...this unprovoked and dastardly attack.". It has come back to bite them in the backsides big time. Also heard the #2 Russian general in Ukraine has been taken out by the Ukrainians. Here's hoping the #1 General Aleksander Dvornikov, a.k.a. "The Butcher of Syria" is next.
It was confirmed this afternoon that he was in fact killed. That is number 8. It was also reported that the Captain of the Moskva was killed and the head of the operation on the ship was killed, that one was confirmed by his wife. No confirmation on the Captain. Since it was the flagship the Admiral of the fleet could have been on board and one has to wonder what his fate is/was.
The Russians have not lost that many general officers in such a short time since WW II.
"Tis but a scratch"
"I've had worse"
"It's just a flesh wound"
"I am invincible!"
"You're a loony"
I love that bit. A classic.
And it is so spot on in so many situations.
Indeed it is.
Yay, team! Wave those Chinese made Ukrainian flags and chant 'slava Ukraini'. You, too, can be a Soviet.
Don't trust any of the propaganda coming out of Ukraine. And be reticent of the propaganda coming out of our own government. Our own intelligence and military have been botching things up for two decades. Yay, team.
The only thing we really know for certain is that the Soviets are killing each other. Let them.
Ask yourselves the really important question. What will the United States win in Ukraine? What are you cheering for? War? Destruction of Russia? What will be accomplished?
Gee, that's an astute inanity that says much about nothing. How does your false dichotomy meme explain what the United States expects to win in Ukraine?
Joe Biden is not searching for peace. So, why should we expect peace from whatever happens in Ukraine?
The United States is not even a combatant in Putin's Damn War in Ukraine. The whole world is wasting irretrievable time and stupendous amounts of treasure because Madman Vlad Putin is blowing up big cities, displacing millions and killing thousands of civilians in Ukraine!
Your shtick is based upon false dichotomies!
The US and Russia aren't equally responsible!
All false equivalencies are false on their face!
The United States only trains the Ukrainian military and provides weapons. The United States has only been helping Ukrainians become better killers. It's gonna be a glorious fight to the death. Popcorn?
The USA, et. al. are helping a weaker military fight off a stronger invading force. The Russian military invaded a sovereign state, not the other way around. The Russian military is intentionally engaging in brutal murder, torture, rape of civilians.
What a twisted, cynical fantasy to conceive this as turning Ukrainians into 'better' killers.
and if the Russians had stayed on their side of the border there would not have been a problem
Your victim blaming, lack of empathy and compassion are tiresome. I don't know why we waste our time with you
Why must you think we must "win" anything by hoping that the non-aggressor in an unjust war survives and thrives?
Most of us would rather see the aggressor lose in pretty much any conflict, whether we have skin in the game or not. We root for Luke and the Rebellion, not Palpatine and the Empire. It satisfies our desire to see justice done. I find it telling that you root for the aggressor here.
The war in Ukraine began in 2014 and not in 2022. An ethnic proxy war has been going on in Ukraine for eight years. It's a little late to be moralizing about justice.
I assume you meant that I'm rooting for the aggressor. All sides have been the aggressor at one time or other over the last eight years. And I don't know who the aggressor is in this war since it's been going on so long.
A framework for peacefully resolving the issues of concern and contention were negotiated by all sides in Ukraine and Russia in 2014. The Ukrainian government did not act on what it had agreed to do. Wasn't that a policy of belligerence and aggression? Didn't that mean the Ukrainian government wasn't negotiating in good faith?
The United States has been involved in the Ukrainian ethnic proxy war since it began in 2014. The United States has invested quite a bit in that proxy war over the last eight years. So, the United States must be expecting to win something.
So, the question is pertinent. What does the United States expect to win from the eight year war in Ukraine?
Only to those who don't care if evil triumphs.
And it was due to Russian aggression. Obama's solution was appeasement of the Russians and allowing the take over if Crimea and refusal to send any lethal arms to the Ukrainian. We can see how well that turned out.
You don't seem to mind believing Russian propaganda.
I believe you meant this for Nerm.
Yes I did. I wonder how I got it was for you?
No worries. It happens.
Obama? No, but we know one thing for sure. Putin definitely didn't want Hillary as POTUS!
Putin definitely didn't want Hillary as POTUS!
But he was happy to have President Obama and Sec Clinton with her red Reset button.
Putin definitely didn’t want Romney as POTUS after debate #3:
“A few months ago, when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. Not al Qaeda. You said Russia,” Obama told him.
“And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” he quipped.
Just goes to show that Putin wasn't completely insane and there are at times some basic good in even the most evil people.
Is that why he kicked them out of the country in less than 96 hours after we learned they interfered in our election process? THAT appeasement? Did you also forget the sanctions that ultimately collapsed the Russian economy?
I don't think you know what, "appeasement" means.
No, what it proves is that over twenty years as US First Lady, US Senator and US Secretary of State Vladimir Putin knew that Hillary Clinton already had his stinking lying no good low down number, meaning that Vlad Putin desperately wanted Donald Trump to become President of the United States instead of Hillary Clinton...
Her Reset Button didn’t work.
Again, you display what seems to be a deep seated animosity towards the Ukrainians while giving the Russians a pass for their brutality and aggression in invading a neighboring sovereign nation for no reason that makes sense to anybody other than Putin.
Let them kill each other. Let Ukraine and Russia destroy each other. Good riddance to both. There aren't any good guys in this war.
The United States had better stay out of this war. The only thing the United States would get from being involved in this war is another Afghanistan.
Do you not comprehend that the Ukrainian people (citizens) are being slaughtered? Citizens! Where the fuck is the human decency?
Let them kill each other. Let Ukraine and Russia destroy each other. Good riddance to both.
I remember in the past you had stated that you had some types of disabilities. Is a complete lack of empathy and compassion one of them?
didn't realize 'collateral damage' as in INNOCENT CIVILIANS was the New Nerm....
Just unbelievable. Disgusting.
Nerm,
I do not understand your position at all. What have the Ukrainians done to deserve this?
There seems to be a "Paul Harvey" rest of the story element here needed to understand the thinking IMHO.
Good to know you're ok with the slaughter of innocents.
I don't think we want to understand what's behind the thinking, at least I don't, IMHO.
Who is trying to stop the slaughter? The countries supplying arms to Ukraine can't; they're belligerents by proxy. Apparently Ukraine and Russia won't.
The path we've chosen only allows ending the slaughter by destroying either Ukraine or Russia. There aren't any mediators or peacekeepers so the only option is to continue the slaughter until one side is victorious. And what will that victory mean?
The United States has chosen a side in the fight. If the side the United States has chosen is destroyed then the United States loses. If the side the United States has chosen destroys the other side then the United States wins. The United States has a vested interest in continuing the slaughter until the chosen side destroys the other side. The United States hasn't been pursuing peace.
Moralizing about the slaughter is hypocritical when we have deliberately chosen slaughter over peace.
The Ukrainian government has been using the United States as a threat to avoid addressing the issues of concern and contention between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian government has been deliberately attempting to draw the United States into a direct conflict with Russia since 2014.
The Ukrainian government deliberately chose war during the Obama administration with the expectation that the United States would fight that war.
So are you saying you don't give a rat's behind about the innocent Ukrainian civilians the Russians are currently slaughtering? If so, that's a pretty cold hearted attitude on your part.
As they say , curiosity killed the cat , some might be curious as to why one would take any certain stance or make a statement , all i am saying is there appears to me to be some underlying bias from the past, influencing present stances , and that holds true for just about anything anyone can think of .
i for one am curious , but i wont press the issue because in my opinion the stance is wrong , period , it is likely in my opinion based in some past reflection or instance that no longer exists , the ukraines are NOT soviets as has been pointed out already , but if one bases a judgement on their past soviet inclusion , they come to a wrong conclusion , like a computer , imput shit information , you get a shit end result .
You're being extremely generous.
Who's trying to stop the slaughter? Who are the mediators? Who are the peacekeepers?
Switchblade drones are not doves of peace. We're encouraging the slaughter. We are providing the means to escalate the slaughter.
Inability or refusal to moralize the slaughter of innocents is even more hypocritical as you seem to be doing. Have you ever served and/or been on the front lines of a war zone?
What alternative do you propose, Nerm?
I mean, so far, you've proposed letting them kill each other. Somehow, you value the lives of innocent children as cheaply as you value those of an invading army. I personally find such a line of thought to be vile, but hey, you own that, buddy.
So, you're all for them killing each other, but you're against us helping the victims defend themselves, because somebody needs to be a peacekeeper?
What do we do? Ask Russia to pretty please with a cherry on top please stop bombing children's hospitals and killing bound civilians?
And if they say "No, we're going to bomb nursing homes now that we're fresh out of children's hospitals, and we're going to lie and say the Ukrainians staged the whole thing", do we just say "Oh, well, carry on, then. We've done our best to keep the peace."
When they threaten NATO countries like Latvia and Lithuania, do we just nod and say "Oh, well, those countries probably didn't dot an "i" in a treaty back in the 80's with a heart to show that they're all love and peace now, so fuck them. Let them and Russia kill each other, too."
When they threaten other nations who might join NATO with nuclear escalation, do we just shrug our shoulders and decide we never liked Swedes, anyway?
At what point do we think maybe, just maybe, Russia is the bad guy here, Nerm? At what point do we (and by "we" I mean "you") stop defending the evil actions of a country under the thumb of an evil man with "well, I'm sure somebody in Ukraine did something nearly as bad as bombing a children's hospital or putting children in front of tanks as human shields while they were invading Russia."
Sometimes I try...
Actually, I rather doubt he does comprehend or care.
No. Putin chose slaughter over peace
Return to the Minsk agreements. Isn't that what the United Nations is for?
Victims? The Ukrainian government was handing out tens of thousands of rifles to those victims. The victims were training to fight, building barricades and tank traps, and making Molotov cocktails. The Zelensky government isn't allowing men to leave the country as refugees; men are stopped at the border because they're are expected to stay and fight.
Civilian fighters are fighters. They aren't civilians any longer. And fighters are not victims.
Everyone fighting in Ukraine is a bad guy. Did you know that the Ukrainian SBU used schools and hospitals to detain and interrogate (by torture) suspected pro-Russian Ukrainians? Did you know that paramilitary units supported by the Kyiv government were taking hostages and demanding ransom? The Ukrainian government really has been using the civilian population as a shield against attack.
The Ukrainian government has its own form of KGB and GRU, a holdover from the USSR, and they haven't changed their methods.
Skipping past women, children and old folks of Ukraine killed by invading Russian forces?
Why did those civilians need to fight, Nerm? Are they invading Russia?
People fighting for their homes, families, and country against a foreign invader have every right to do so with whatever means available. Again, are still saying there are zero innocents in Ukraine? What about the women and children and the elderly not fighting that are getting slaughtered wantonly on a daily by the Russians? Would you step up and defend your home if someone invaded your country? Do they deserve that? No, they do not! Come on, step up and answer the question for a change instead of avoiding it. Sounds to me like you have swallowed Putin's propaganda hook, line, and sinker!
No disagreement. But fighters are fighters, aren't they? Civilians lose their innocence when they become combatants, don't they?
That's the risk and danger with civilian insurgent resistance. Soldiers don't know who the fighters are, so the battlefield necessity becomes killing them all and let God sort them out.
How does anyone know which civilian is a combatant and which civilian isn't? How does a soldier know if a bright colored coat worn by a child is a signal for artillery spotters or not? How does a soldier know that an old woman isn't gathering intelligence on troop strength and disposition?
So just kill, rape and mutilate any Ukrainian (from children to old women) on the chance that they might be trying to defend their country from your invasion??
And you still continue to dance around my question. You are really reaching here. If those women and elderly are unarmed, they are not legitimate targets. Small children being wantonly killed by the Russians for no reasons than a possible reason cannot be justified under any circumstances. It is just downright wrong! What would you feel if it was your kids or family the Russians were slaughtering?
You sound like your talking to an action star named Steven Segal who lived in a make-believe world of cinema or Russia. Another tough guy who never served a day in their life in the US Military.
From the looks of Segal, it seems the only 'action' he's actively engaged in is eating food.
Nerm, are you seriously trying to defend Russia and/or blame Ukraine?
It is worse than that:
Yeah, I had to do a double take when I read that, followed by a head shake while face palming. Methinks Nerm has issues.
Yes, in a most enormous way. Either that or he's a paid Russian troll. Could be either or.
No. What I'm telling everyone is that Ukraine is not significantly different than Russia. Ukraine is only the 'good guys' if everyone ignores how the war started in 2014 and completely ignores the war atrocities that have occurred in the Donbas region over the last eight years.
And you are dead wrong from the get go.
Ukraine didn't invade Russia in an unprovoked attack. Neither is it attacking civilian populations. That's all Russia.
... and thus good riddance to the dead Ukrainian civilians murdered, raped and mutilated by Russian invaders.
It is disgusting to watch an individual equate the acts of the Russian military with the defense by Ukrainians as 'Soviets [ sic ] killing each other ... good riddance'.
By his outright refusal to condemn the senseless and wanton slaughter of innocent unarmed civilians by the Russian invaders, he is by default tacitly approving said actions and giving said Russians a pass and defending their actions, making his commentary all the more disgusting and unconscionable!
I agree. Amazing that someone can think that way. It is, among many other things, heartless.
Sadly, in the beginning I thought he may have had a point about us staying out of the conflict.
It kind of deviated from there...
They wouldn't have to worry about either if they hadn't invaded, would they? Any danger to themselves is something they provoked, themselves.
Isn't that how wars work? That didn't seem to have been a concern for the United States' own invasions. Hasn't the attitude of the United States always been 'good riddance'?
The United States uses violence to achieve justice. That's what the bozo buckaroos running the United States now have been seeking in Ukraine; justice and not peace. The provocation for a justice warrior is an injustice that warrants violence to correct the injustice. And justice warriors don't accept that there are innocent bystanders. If you don't fight for justice then you certainly are not innocent -- you are the enemy.
Russia is claiming to have been provoked by an injustice. And correcting that injustice warrants violence; that's become the accepted model for correcting injustice. We've seen violence provoked by claimed injustice on the streets of our own cities. Those who don't fight to correct an injustice are certainly not innocent -- they are the enemy. Good riddance to the enemy.
Joe Biden has plainly stated he is seeking justice in various forms. Biden is not seeking peace; Biden is seeking justice through retribution and violence. There are no innocents in Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are either fighters or they are the enemy; there aren't any other choices.
So, what do you expect to happen in Ukraine? What do you expect to happen if the United States is drawn into the war? Correcting an injustice requires killing the enemy. And those who don't fight for what you claim is justice are the enemy. There aren't any conscientious objectors; they're either with you or against you. Peace doesn't have a chance in a war for justice.
Let them kill each other. Let them seek their own justice. We don't need to be involved in this fight. Good riddance to both.
You seem to have no empathy for the Ukranian people. Your justification for this cold-hearted "let them kill each other" sentiment is to argue, in effect, that this is just the way life works.
Bullshit. It is wrong for a nation to invade another for greedy conquest. It is wrong to murder / rape / mutilate / ... civilians. It is wrong to target civilians in a war.
You can blab all you wish but I am pretty sure all you will accomplish is a further suicide (if that is even possible) of the character 'Nerm'.
I think it is safe to say that any credibility he might have had disappeared with his opening commentary in this article. On a personal level, I can truly say I would never trust that person to watch my back in a firefight.
Empathy for which side? I've been posting a lot of information and links over the last two months. Over 14,000 Ukrainians have been killed during the eight year war in Donbas before Russia invaded. Some 2.5 million refugees have fled the war in Donbas before the Russian invasion. A commercial airliner was downed during the war in Donbas; they were casualties of war, too. Schools and hospitals have been targeted during the war in Donbas before Russia invaded. There have been incidents of murder, rape, mutilation, and torture committed by both sides during the war in Donbas before the Russian invasion.
Why should empathy only be aroused by hatred of Russia? Is no one to be held accountable for what has happened in Ukraine before the Russian invasion?
Who invaded who during the eight year war in Donbas? They were all Ukrainians. The US backed Ukrainians in Kyiv blame the Russian backed Ukrainian separatists for the war in Donbas. And the Russian backed Ukrainian separatists blame the US backed Ukrainians in Kyiv. Who is responsible for what in Ukraine?
NATO and the US military were operating in Ukraine as trainers and advisors before the Russian invasion. The US claims that it only provided monetary aid for economic development. Development of what? Ukraine's weapons manufacturing industries?
The seeded article is about Ukrainians sinking the Russian flagship Moskva. But Ukrainians are claiming the Moskva was sunk with missiles manufactured by Ukraine. US money for economic development played a role, didn't it? US money has played a role during the eight year war in Donbas, too.
So, empathy for which side? Do the Ukrainians killed by the Ukrainian military deserve empathy? Or should they be denied empathy because they're backed by Russia? Is no one to be held accountable for what has happened in Ukraine before the Russian invasion? As long as the war didn't threaten Kyiv then everything else going on in Ukraine didn't really happen.
Empathy driven by hate for Russia isn't very empathetic.
For human beings ... especially the people whose nation has been invaded. In particular, the civilians. But your empathy should also extend to the Russian people who are being forced to give up their lives and the lives of their sons because of Putin's glorious fantasies.
To make this crystal clear, the bad guys, right now in this situation, are Putin and his supporters.
You should be embarrassed at the cold-hearted, irresponsible, ill-conceived crap you have spewed here.
Don't feed me that ten-pointer malarkey about firefights. I've heard that bullshit since I was in middle school.
No, I haven't been in the military. Vietnam had been fucked by the time I was eligible so I didn't have to go. Besides, my old man was taking me to Canada if I was drafted whether I wanted to go or not. And the military wasn't recruiting very much at the end of Vietnam so I likely wouldn't have been needed even if I volunteered.
I was in a civilian government position. And I've done some work with military suppliers. My contribution may have been microscopic but some of my work did cross the berm into Iraq during Desert Storm. Just because I was far in the rear doesn't mean I didn't have the grunts backs on the firing line.
Just because you don't know what it takes to support the troops in a firefight doesn't give you any moral high ground. Apparently you have no idea how much work is required by thousands of people to watch the troops backs in a firefight.
Indeed, last Spring, around 135,000 Russian men were drafted, they were ones who couldn't get a deferment or didn't have enough money to pay for a draft dodge. After the symbolic medical exam, draftees are assembled where they are photographed, fingerprinted, and seated in to await the review from different branches of the army. The big, strong ones or those with special skills are selected first, other wait for hour or in some cases days to be picked for a team. Finally, they are issued uniforms made by prison labor and off they go.
I don't know if they are cremated in uniform in Ukraine or naked to save the uniform for this years draftees.
Oh, I'm so hurt. NOT! Your behind just went on ignore as I have had enough of your sanctimonious BS. Bye now...
You know, Russia sat at the negotiating table to try to resolve the situation. The United States did not. Maybe Russia wasn't negotiating in good faith; maybe Russia really was trying to find a resolution. Who knows? But at least they showed up at talks for peace. The Obama administration was only taking potshots from the peanut gallery. Maybe Obama was miffed because the US wasn't included. Who knows?
There was a framework for peace that the Ukrainians on both sides and Russia appeared to agree with. That agreement included independent monitoring by the OSCE. Everyone knew what was happening in Donbas. And apparently everyone ignored what was happening in Donbas. No one stepped in to mediate and act as peacekeeper. The United Nations was no where to be found. The US had already chosen a side so the Europeans didn't believe they needed to pay attention. US sanctions against Russia was the answer.
But nobody seemed to notice that US sanctions against Russia hadn't stopped the war in Donbas. Ukrainians kept killing Ukrainians. Kyiv wasn't threatened so the war wasn't that important. NATO could continue to operate in western Ukraine unimpeded. The US could continue to influence the Kyiv government with money. The war in Donbas was an inconvenient fact that no one wanted to see.
So, peace died a quiet and unnoticed death in Ukraine. The framework to peacefully resolve the situation in Ukraine was set aside. That was easy because the war in Donbas was ignored.
My empathy is for the death of peace. The way to avoid a Russian invasion of Ukraine was agreed to eight years ago. But that fact is too inconvenient for demanding justice. Our side is right; their side is wrong. But everyone ignores there are three sides in Ukraine.
Yeah, the bad guy of the moment. Just ignore everything else. Inconvenient facts have no place in seeking justice, after all.
And "I would never trust that person to watch my back in a firefight" isn't sanctimonious?
Right now what matters is what you cold-heartedly have attempted to excuse and that is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia (Putin and supporters) followed by the brutal murder / rape / mutilation of Ukrainian civilians.
Your excuses are disgusting.
What excuses? I'm not trying to rationalize anything; that's what you are doing. I'm confronting cold, hard reality.
To force Russia out of Ukraine it will be necessary for the US backed Ukrainian government to fight Russia AND Ukrainian separatists. Ukrainians and Russians are allied in this war. There isn't any way to avoid a bloodbath in eastern Ukraine on our current path. I'm not trying to rationalize or excuse what's coming.
The rationalization is that the 'good' Ukrainians must kill the 'bad' Ukrainians. And Russia is the excuse whether Russia remains in Ukraine or not. There won't be peace in Ukraine as long as Ukrainians are fighting Ukrainians. As long as there are Russian backed Ukrainians there won't be peace from the US point of view. And Russian backed Ukrainians are 'bad' Ukrainians from the US point of view. That's the cold, hard reality.
There won't be peace in Ukraine until those who want war have killed each other off. Ukraine has chosen utter destruction to achieve justice rather than peace. That's the cold, hard reality. When peace becomes the sought after goal then that will be the time for empathy. Until then let them kill each other since that is the chosen way to achieve peace.
Then you have no clue what you are doing.
So an ally is invading and destroying and killing its "ally?" That's some serious conspiracy level BS right there!
Blood has already been spilt. By the Russians first.
Putin wants war. The Ukrainians didn't invade Russia or ask to be invaded. There will be peace once Russia withdraws, surrenders, or is forcibly removed.
Really? So they should simply accept being invaded and bow down to Russia? Is that what you're saying?
Norm refuses to acknowledge the nowhere are in Ukraine have invading Russian forces been welcomed as liberators by Ukrainians.
In a nutshell, yes that actually seems to be what he is trying to get across. The rationalization gets more twilight zone related with every comment attempting to justify his twisted logic of Russia's pass to invade, kill, and maim.
& Ed, post 9.3.58:
Yeah, I am not understanding the mentality or attempts at rationalization. It seems to me that Nerm is basically excusing Russia for invading Ukraine and hoping they both wipe each other out. It's beyond bizarre.
Has the Russian military been attacking the parts of Ukraine controlled by the separatists? The government in Kyiv has not had control over the border between Russia and the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts for eight years. Russia has only attacked the parts of Ukraine under control of the Kyiv government. Russia has not been attacking all of Ukraine.
Unless, of course, the areas controlled by Ukrainian separatists is no longer considered part of Ukraine. If that's the case then maybe the Kyiv government should inform the separatists.
No, first blood was spilt by the Ukrainian interim government's 'anti-terror campaign' in eastern Ukraine in 2014.
Is eastern Ukraine part of Ukraine, part of Russia, or independent republics? Your rationalization is only valid by completely ignoring the eight year war in Donbas. The facts before the Russian invasion are too inconvenient to include in the rationalization.
Really? So Russia should simply ignore the Ukrainians fighting on its border and the refugees fleeing into Russia to escape that war? Russia should just bow down to the US backed government in Kyiv? Is that what you're saying?
Gee, I wonder why.
That's about the size of it.
Well, with a bit of victim-blaming because Ukraine has some folks who aren't saints, and dared to defy Mother Russia by considering joining NATO like they're an independent nation or something.
Why in the world should Russia have any say at all in who governs another nation? Why do you think Russia is entitled to establish a puppet government?
That was evident from the very first posts.
That's rich considering that the United States believes it should have a say in how other countries are governed. The United States has called for regime change. And the United States has invaded other countries to topple regimes.
Why did Joe Biden use money to force the Ukrainian government to accept a quid pro quo arrangement as the national policy of the United States? Obviously the United States didn't like how the Ukrainian government was governing, so the United States meddled in that government.
Tu quoque fallacy. Look how that's turned out for us.
Also, the policy under which Biden was operating was that we wouldn't support a government that supported corruption, including international money laundering schemes. Do you believe we should be supporting corruption, Nerm? Shokin's own people wanted him out of office. Ukrainian parliament finally found the balls to get that done.
Why was the United States even involved? What were the vital interests of the United States in Ukraine?
Corruption in the Ukrainian government are obstacles for membership in the European Union and NATO. But that only requires denying membership until the corruption is corrected. NATO refusing to cooperate with Ukraine until the government addressed corruption would be an incentive. Ukraine has become dependent on natural gas supplied by Poland and Romania which would be leverage to encourage the Ukrainian government to address corruption. Trade relations and agreements would be important incentives for reforms in the Ukrainian government. That has been the justification for globalization through interdependence.
The only plausible interest the United States had in Ukraine was Russia. The United States was using Ukraine as a proxy to threaten and contain Russia. The United States expected the Ukrainian government to take a belligerent and provocative stance towards Russia in exchange for foreign aid. And the United States could use dependence upon foreign aid to threaten the Ukrainian government.
The United States policy was only using Ukraine as a means to another end. The United States wasn't interested in Ukraine for Ukraine's benefit.
Untrue, though Putin would like us to believe!
The US has great interest in Ukraine remaining free and independent of Russia's vile influence.
Just see the economic havoc Putin causes us.
You'd think the US had no interest in that too?
Seems to me he just cannot comprehend or differentiate between the Ukrainian civil populace and what he perceives their government has done in the past, and believes they should all suffer accordingly for it. If that is indeed the case, then the sick and twisted logic of that escapes me.
Because they wanted our money.
Because we're part of a global community where crimes committed and not prosecuted in one country can easily cause harm in another, and Shokin was enabling and possibly participating in such crimes.
Citing 'Russia's vile influence' only repeats what I stated in @9.3.67. The only interest the United States had in Ukraine was Russia.
Doesn't that mean that national interests must be subordinated to global interests? Global interests diminish the importance and value of national sovereignty. What's the point of Ukraine protecting its national borders if the global community can dictate what Ukraine does inside its borders?
No. The only person making that assertion here is you.
Soviets ? There haven't been any Soviets since 12/1991.
I'd like to dissect your comment, Nerm.
Like we wave our Chinese made American flags? Yes we know that the Ukrainians are slaves. So is most of eastern Europe. It doesn't make them Soviets. In fact, no one is Soviet, since it collapsed in 1992.
What propaganda are you talking about? The fact that they wanted to join Nato since they feared Russia, just like Finnland and Sweeden do now. Did you know that Finnland used to be part of Russia? Should Poland worry too?
There is no Soviet Union. Hasn't been since 1992. And Ukraine is a country with a separate language and culture and has been free and independent since August 24, 1991.
You seem to be missing the big picture. It's what the world gains. Russia is a bully. It has been slowly moving into territory that it lost at the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bullies become bigger bullies as they make gains. What the US gains is making sure that Europe doesn't become destabilized, which Putin is doing by declaring a fully independent country as his own. And if Putin was worried about Ukraine becoming part of Nato, he sure has guaranteed 2 more countries on his border joining, from his aggression and his aggression alone.
I don't get you at all unless you believe in "Peace in our time". We all saw how well that turned out.
Bravo, well said!
Did Brexit fundamentally change the United Kingdom's political system, form of government, and method of governing?
The collapse of the USSR did not fundamentally change the internal politics, form of government, and method of governing in the separate Soviet Republics. The collapse of the USSR did not fundamentally change the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, did it?
The collapse of the USSR did not end Soviet political philosophy or ideology. The collapse of the USSR did not eliminate autocratic central government. The various Republics of the USSR did not magically transform into western democracies with the collapse of the USSR. They're still Soviet in how they govern.
IMO I'm not being blinded by cheerleading. Both Russia and Ukraine have changed little since the USSR collapsed. Russia and Ukraine are interchangeable. Both have autocratic corrupt governments. Both are governed in an undemocratic manner. Ukraine is as much a western democracy as is Turkey. And Turkey's membership in NATO has been problematic.
The stability of Europe was supposed to be enhanced by creation of the European Union. The EU was intended to diminish European national conflicts by creating a common currency, ensuring free movement within Europe, and establishing an arbitrating authority to resolve national conflicts. But the United States has little, if any influence, over the European Union. The United States dominates NATO and NATO does meddle in the internal affairs of the European Union.
Russia has expressed concerns about Ukraine's belligerence toward a Russian presence in Crimea. The situation is quite similar to the United States maintaining a naval station at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The United States has encroached upon the national sovereignty of Cuba in the same manner that Russia encroached on the national sovereignty of Ukraine. The United States does not allow the Cuban government to have political control over Guantanamo Bay. However, Russia did allow the Ukrainian government to have political control over Crimea in exchange for security guarantees that allowed Russia to maintain a naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea.
The Ukrainian government established by parliamentary coup in 2013 threatened to revoke those security guarantees. That was the first belligerent act of aggression in Ukraine. Russia responded to that threat by taking away the Ukrainian government's political control of Crimea (just as the United States does not allow the Cuban government political control over Guantanamo Bay).
The United States supported the belligerent threat made by the Ukrainian government. Likely as a bargaining chip against Russian support of the Bashir Al-Assad government in Syria which was a hot-button political issue at the time. However, the Ukrainian government used that support by the United States to escalate threats against Russia, negotiate in bad faith, and play the United States against Russia. The Ukrainian government has been using the United States to threaten Russia and has been attempting to create a direct conflict between the United States and Russia to enforce those threats.
Again, you choose to totally ignore the plight of the innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered daily by the Russian forces that invaded Ukraine. Or do you believe nobody is innocent? Again, have you ever served in the military in a front line combat unit? I have, having served in Vietnam and the 1st Gulf War as a US Navy FMF Hospital Corpsman with the Marines. I saw my share of death, destruction, and horror. I still have the nightmares that go with it! I doubt you would be posting what are posting here if you had seen what I and other vets posting here have seen.
In addition, exclaiming 'good riddance' on the deaths of non-combatants — especially given the gruesome acts that have taken place — is inexcusable (and more).
Just furthers my belief that he has never seen combat in a military uniform, or if he is even American for that matter.
It actually did during Glasnost. For the first time the Russian people were having free elections. Did you forget about that Nerm? Ukraine has been having free elections since its independence.
The EU started as a way to keep the peace after WWII, but ultimately the main reason for having the EU was to become an economic power. The other stuff was just the icing on the cake.
Of course, we have limited influence over the EU. Would you expect the EU to have anything over us or NAFTA? We dominate NATO because it suits us and it suits them. When it stops being mutually beneficial then it would no longer be.
First of all, Crimea was part of Ukraine. Russia was the aggressor in 2014 and not the other way around. So maybe that might explain why Ukraine might be a tad belligerent towards Russia, especially when Russia was trying to force their will about Ukraine becoming part of Nato. This is nothing like Guantanamo Bay. We have been a constant presence there since we took it in the Spanish-American war in 1898. In 1903, the United States signed a lease with Cuba that gave the United States permission to use the land as a naval station. Cuba became communist and we never recognized that government and we still don't. On the other hand, after the break up of the USSR, Ukraine became free and independent like many other countries. So Russia does not have a say over Ukraine, although they seem to think so. How they decide to rule themselves is their business.
What threat? Ukraine's own internal struggles had nothing to do with Russia, yet it was Russia that was trying to interfere. When did I miss Ukraine marching into any other country? That whole last paragraph illudes me. Russia has managed to prove to the world, why they need NATO. Russia started Ukraine by taking Crimea and now trying to take the Donbas region.
People toss out terms like 'free elections' but what does that really mean? The USSR held elections. But the Communist Party controlled who would be on the ballot. And the Communist Party did not tolerate the dissent of not voting. Voter participation in the USSR was quite high.
So, what does 'free elections' really mean?
Wrong war. The European Union was created as a response to the end of the Cold War. The USSR was gone so what was the threat to Europe? NATO dominance by the United States was the perceived threat after collapse of the USSR. The EU was created to unite Europe without American influence. The United States was the destabilizing influence in Europe following the end of the Cold War.
Russia did not invade Crimea in 2014. The Russian military was already in Crimea; Russia maintained military bases in Crimea. Russia has been a constant presence in Crimea since the recapture of Ukraine from German occupation in 1943. And Russia was present in Crimea before the German occupation of Ukraine. Russia's presence in Crimea is very much like the United State's presence in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Cuba's government was overthrown, by a popular uprising, to something unacceptable to the United States and the United States took political control over Guantanamo Bay away from the new Cuban government. That's the same thing that happened in Crimea. The Ukrainian government was overthrown, by a popular uprising, to something unacceptable to Russia and Russia took political control over Crimea away from the new Ukrainian government.
Russia has a say over Crimea the same way the United States has a say over Guantanamo Bay and for exactly the same reasons.
Humanitarian organizations have estimated that one million refugees fled to Russia to escape the war in Donbas. About the same number of refugees have been internally displaced inside Ukraine. The humanitarian crisis began in 2014 and not in 2022.
The Ukrainian government has been trying to take the Donbas region through military force for eight years. The United States began providing lethal aid for the Ukrainian government's war in Donbas in 2019. The Ukrainian government was not fighting Russia with those US supplied weapons. Ukrainians have been fighting Ukrainians for eight years. All the war atrocities in Ukraine were committed by Ukrainians before the Russian invasion.
There hasn't been any fighting in Crimea. There weren't any war atrocities in Crimea. The fighting since 2014 has been in the Donbas region that borders Russia. The war in Donbas has continued even during the Russian invasion.
Nerm,
It was not like that when Glasnost happened. There were free elections. But hey don't take my word for it:
glasnost , (Russian: “openness”) Soviet policy of open discussion of political and social issues. It was instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s and began the democratization of the Soviet Union . Ultimately, fundamental changes to the political structure of the Soviet Union occurred: the power of the Communist Party was reduced, and multicandidate elections took place. Glasnost also permitted criticism of government officials and allowed the media freer dissemination of news and information. ( See also perestroika .)
No it isn't. Here is the history of the EU. Check out the time line:
And then you keep conflating the EU with Nato. Nato was started because of the Cold War. It was formed by both Europen Nations and the US. No arm twisting:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) , military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II . Its original members were Belgium , Canada , Denmark , France , Iceland , Italy , Luxembourg , the Netherlands , Norway , Portugal , the United Kingdom , and the United States .
No it wasn't in Crimea in 2013. This is what they did:
Following the Euromaidan protests and a revolution resulting in the removal of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, pro-Russian unrest erupted in parts of Ukraine. Russian soldiers without insignia took control of strategic positions and infrastructure in the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and seized the Crimean Parliament . Russia organized a widely criticised referendum , whose outcome was for Crimea to join Russia. It then annexed Crimea. In April 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian groups in the Donbas region of Ukraine escalated into a war between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk republics.
In August 2014, unmarked Russian military vehicles crossed the border into the Donetsk republic. An undeclared war began between Ukrainian forces on one side, and separatists intermingled with Russian troops on the other, although Russia attempted to hide its involvement.
This is the only debatable part that you presented:
As indicated above, Dombas is part of Ukraine. It would be like if one of our states decided to pull out of the US. How do you think our government would react. But in any case, Russia clearly is trying to take all of Ukraine. They are murdering civilians. This is NOT a border war. If Russia is allowed to do this, they will do the same to all the ex-Soviet States. Putin has said it himself. The worst thing that ever happened to Russia was the collapse of the Soviet Union. What do you think he is trying to do here?
I could go on like this with you indefinitely, but I would be wasting my time. You have made up your mind to suit your beliefs and no amount of facts is going to change that. I'm sorry that you side with a country that has not been our friend for a very long time. I have no time for Russia.
Not to mention that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union dissolved along with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Exactly, Ed.
What does 'free elections' mean? Everyone tosses that out but no one explains what 'free elections' mean.
Gorbachev was forced out in a manner similar to how Ukraine's Yanukovych was forced out. The government wasn't changed by an election, using any definition of 'free election', in either Russia or Ukraine.
Even our elections are controlled by political parties. Political parties control who people can vote for (or against). And after our elections, political parties control government. How is that different than how the Communist Party ran elections in the USSR? A mythology of 'free elections' only rationalizes undemocratic political control by political parties.
How the hell did we end up with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the only viable choices for the 2016 election? Any rational person could recognize both of them would be divisive, confrontational, autocratic Presidents. Was the 2016 election really a 'free election'? What does 'free elections' really mean?
No, I'm not conflating the EU and NATO. What I'm pointing out is that NATO allows the United States to project a dominating influence into Europe. The Europe Union unifies Europe against the dominating influence of the United States.
The European Union was created in 1993 at the end of the Cold War. And the EU is significantly different than European Economic Community created in 1958. The purpose, role, and authority of the EU greatly exceeds that of the EEC. The EEC was essentially a trading pact, somewhat similar to our NAFTA. But the EU assumes authority over internal governance of member states far beyond trade and economics relations. The EU imposes itself onto national fiscal and civil policy which the EEC did not do.
That's simply not correct. The Black Sea Fleet was headquartered in Sevastopol, Crimea, long before World War II. The Black Sea Fleet has always been Russian; before, during, and after the USSR era. Russia established the Black Sea Fleet in 1783 and based that fleet at Sevastopol, Crimea. Russia has been forced out of Crimea and the Black Sea several times over the last 250 years and Russia has fought its way back into Crimea and the Black Sea each time. That 250 years of history doesn't suggest that Russia will give up Crimea or the Black Sea. Every time Russia has been kicked out of Crimea over the last 250 years, Russia has fought a war to reclaim Crimea regardless of the cost in lives or treasure. Today's war in Ukraine is not the first time Russia has bankrupted itself to reclaim Crimea.
Another possibility no one has mentioned as of yet so i will.
sabotage .
Who is to say some crewman didnt start the fire like on the US navy ship the bonny dick? and did so during a missile attack ?
It HAS been reported that russian troops have been taking their own equipment out by sabotaging it in various ways , but taking out a whole warship... that would be the mother of all acts of get me the hell out of here .
And in war ( or special military operations ) anything is possible even if it is not plausible .
The Russian military is falling apart. It will take a generation, at least, for it to recover from the damage Ukraine has inflicted upon it.
debatable , the russian military over the past 100 years or so have proven to be somewhat resilient, when faced with setbacks .
Historically, they've been resilient. On that point you are correct. But look at what's going on NOW. Since this whole thing kicked off, Russia has shown that they are not the threat we have all been told they are. Their equipment is far from operational. Their tactics aren't working. They have no real logistical plan for any of their operations. And what little they do have has been taking hit after hit. How long do you think that can be sustained? The nuclear weapons? Given the condition of everything else they've shown, I'm starting to question that capability.
We've all seen reports of the Russian Soldiers taking out their own leadership or surrendering. I've seen reports that they've suffered casualties near 100,000. But I've also seen them reported below 2,000. Although, I don't think the real numbers aren't being reported or even known.
Remember, in the past Russia relied on a conscript military. It worked wonders for them in WW2. But that was 70+ years ago. A lot has changed.
All very good points , i have to remind myself as others should , that the Russian military of today , is NOT the military that i faced back in the 80s when the cold war was still going very hot on all fronts and the militaries were pretty much given a bottomless financial well to draw from that I faced and was trained to confront .
As for conscripted military , i think the US is one of very few if not the only one that has an all volunteer military with no mandatory service required other than registration . And that as well has an effect on how troops preform . I think we are witnessing the evidence of that right now in Ukraine I mean which would you put your money on ? the conscript or the volunteer when it comes to fighting for something ? there is an edge there even if someone chooses not to believe it . .
Back in the day, the USSR had around 156 motor rifle divisions and 54 tank divisions.
The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics
It has been said of the Russian army is one of ''Quantity is its own Quality'' in other words casualties be damn since WWII overwhelm the enemy with numbers, It would seem that it's a true statement looking at the Russian tactics in Ukraine.
There was an excellent article on the Russian armor and its state of disrepair and how much of it is really battle ready. I can't find the article again but it shed a lot of light on Russian armor and it wasn't good news for the Russians. The other thing is their lack of trucks for moving supplies, they are now down to using civilian trucks which will not hold up for long.
It seems that the Russians have violated the basic rules of war if you read and follow Claus Carl von Clausewitz or Sun Tzu.
I was shocked to see them moving armor without aircover or unmounted infantry.
Morning..I was rather surprised when Putin rolled up here in 2014 for the G20 and they sent out a couple of warships. One of the vessels was an ocean going tug, incase one of the warships broke down...
I thought then that was a rather odd comment and wondered if their military force was up to scratch then.
The excuse was because we were so far away!!! Our and other countries Navies seem to manage sailing around the world without a tug...
LOL, not a good sign when a tug is tagging along.
h russian military over the past 100 years or so have proven to be somewhat resilient, when faced with setbacks
I don't know. The Russo Japanese War was a debacle, and 10 years WW1 was. The red army performed well against the White Russians, but faltered against Poland. Their resilience in WW2 was a combination of geography, international aid and massive amounts of manpower. None of those things are going work in their advantage any time soon.
The USSR has splintered, which by itself has slashed Russia's manpower advantage. Moreover, Rump Russia has been been undergoing a demographic crisis. Ethnic Russians aren't having kids and they are losing population through migration. The population is aging and unhealthy and it's getting worse. Combine that with an economy in shambles and it's hard to see where they money is going to come from to replace everything they've lost in Ukraine. Besides destroying their economy, they've recklessly scarified man \of their elite units with those unsupported raids in the early days of the Ukraine war.
It's just hard to see how Russia recovers what they've lost anytime soon. They don't have the economy to rearm and they no longer have the massive manpower advantage they historically relied on. Russia is withering away.
wont refute anything you have said , its all true , personally i think we will see the so called "federation ", splinter even more in the aftermath of the current actions .
In the past few days, it's been reported that a major Russian tank manufacturer can no longer build tanks due to parts shortage/sanctions and a shipbuilder voiced the same problem (s)
Russian tanks that need major repairs due to battle damage have to be shipped to eastern Russian 2/3,000 kilometers from the battlefield.
All of this spells that Russia is in serious trouble.
what i found ironic was not that this is the Russian warship involved at snake island and got told what to do with itself, but the fact that the Moskva as the ship is named , was built in the Ukraine when it was a soviet satellite member of the USSR.
it also didnt get past me that Moskva is "Moscow " translated ...
Those Russian troops are being taught how to really "embrace the suck " at the moment .
Sean, all of your comment is correct but Russia does not wage war by Western standards. They throw manpower at the enemy no matter the cost to Russia. This worked well when they had massive manpower in their arsenal, as you stated currently that doesn't exist yet they are stuck in the past with the way they wage war.
The longer Ukraine makes them bleed for every inch of ground they are going to run out of men or they may run out of weapons, such as tanks, APCs, and trucks (they already have a shortage of trucks for transporting supplies) Which will come first lack of manpower or equipment? Either way, it's not a good look for Russia.
LOL, true.
Think you forgot one .
the russian populus or people , what happens when they finally start to ask questions about why those young men are being sent into what appears to be an endless meat grinder losing an entire generation ? I doubt they forget that the old soviet system came into being because the imperial czar did exactly the same thing in WW1 and pretty much under the same supply and equipment situation .
There are articles on Russian NG refusing to be sent to Ukraine saying it's an illegal order and sued.
There is another article where 60 elite paratroopers refused to be sent to Ukraine.
my point exactly , people are asking questions and deciding for themselves .
Don't look to see hardly any of the new T 14 Armata tanks Russia is so proud of when they cannot even repair and/or maintain the older MBT's lost or damaged in combat in Ukraine. They have very few T 14's as it is and they are very expensive to build to begin with.
Good question, and here is a link explaining it.
My question was why aren't the T 90 indestructible being used in great numbers and here is the answer to that. The Ukrainians are blowing them up and have captured a couple of them.
I have both books and have read them cover to cover, though it has been a few years. I had the same thoughts about them moving armor without anti-air capability dismounted troop support. Quite stupid on the Russian's part and it has cost them big time.
I'd have to put my money on the volunteer side. Now I am a bit biased having served voluntarily. I think there are too too many problems in mandatory service. After working with other countries that require military / police service, there are a lot of problems with those who don't want to be there. Don't get me wrong, both sides will fight when it comes down to it. But the volunteer force won't have discipline problems like we are seeing in the Russian army where they are taking out their chain of command.
I may have read the same article. Then seeing how their equipment has been taken out with such ease reinforces it. Their tactics aren't really what I expected either. This may be due to my training, but the lack of dismounted Infantry has had me scratching my head. Seem they are all in for the "heavy" fight and very little focus on dismounted tactics. I guess they may see taking out a full building easier than anything else.
Their lack of logistics really surprised me. I was a logisitician during my service. Not seeing supply convoy's moving from the start had me miffed. I guess Russia thought this whole thing would be over in a few days and didn't plan on such a strong resistance. I'm not saying the equipment from other countries isn't helping but that equipment is useless if there isn't somebody there willing to use it.
I was too. While a T-72or M1 Abrams are intimidating, they still need the dismounted Infantry support for protection. There are just too many little holes on a battle field to hide a Javalin, AT4, SMAW or any other anti-armor weapons for a large battle tank to neutralize.
Their conscripted soldiers are usually in for just 1 year, it doesn't allow adequate time for individual, crew/team, and unit training with time left over for actual service.
I don't know how long the requirement is for Russia. I know Germany, their requirement is 2 or 3 years, South Korea is for 2 years.
But you are correct. That doesn't give time for any kind of real training.
Russia is one year.
The logistics thing is really stunning. The Russian faced the same thing in their short war with Georiga and supposedly they revamped the logistics supply line but from seeing the disaster in Ukraine it isn't working. Another article that I read is their lack of trucks (the backbone of logistics) and the poor working condition that many are in. They are now using civilian trucks in some cases to do the job and that is a damn poor substitute for military equipment.
The idea of "military grade" isn't as strong as people think. Even for the US. As a soldier, I hear "military grade" and I cringe while others get all happy.
The US has, for decades, relied on civilian trucks (and drivers) for a chunk of our logistics. But we are talking about Russian standards. It's becoming more and more apparent that their standards are not what everybody thought they were in capability and sustainability.
Aspects of Russia's military has likely been stagnating and lacking maintenance for years, which the Ukraine conflict is now making apparent. While I cannot speak as to the efficacy regarding the military training of the Russian soldier, I would opine they do not "have their hearts in this fight," so to speak, and their morale might be lacking.
I have not personally talked to anyone who favors Russia over The Ukraine.
Photo of the Moskva after she was hit by Ukrainian Nepture missiles and just before she sank.