The Situation in the Ukraine. #31

Ukria is f*cked up because it is a fake country. It has no history other than basically since 1917. It claims Kievan Rus was "Ukraine"
which is a retarded joke. Ukria has no similarity to say Scotland and Wales. It was not a country absorbed into the Russian Empire and
it is not a real distinct ethnos. That a minority of Ukrainians do not speak Russian means jack shit. Linguistic divergence can be seen in the UK even
if people still speak English. Ukrainian is closer to the language spoken in Kiev Rus times but it is also heavily influenced by Polish thanks
to the occupation by the Grand Duchy of Poland and Lithuania. Finland and Poland were distinct nations temporarily absorbed into the
Russian Empire. There are other examples like the north Caucuses.

Ukr nazionalist revisionists claim that "Ukraine" was Russified. This is a total lie. There was never any forceful conversion to the Russian
language. And after 1917 there was an explicit program of promotion of the Ukrainian language. Without both western meddling and
the USSR there would be no Ukraine. Germany explicitly sponsored Ukrainian nationalists during WWI to break away from Russia. They
wanted Ukrainian food resources. During WWII the Nazis also succored the nationalists now nazionalists. After WWII, these vermin got
handed off to Washington and its pals. The events of post 1990 Ukraine are shaped by the cold war generation of Ukr activists who
managed to take over the country since they had the financing and the "sex appeal". Now Ukrainians are reaping this real Harvest of
Sorrow.

Anyway, the events of the last 30 years have shown that Russia is better off without this region. It has cleaved off from Russia probably
irreversibly and would be an enormous leech on resources to try to return to the Russian fold. This is true even if it stays and independent
state.

I personally think Ukraine is playing a very dangerous game. Not only has its economy been vastly destroyed by losing sales to Russia since 2014, but also industry in the east of the country. Majority of the best industries are found in the east of the country and the port of Odessa.

Now if Ukraine provokes the bear they could lose a lot more. If Russia was to support the Donbass troops they could end up taking more land and industries, and going as far as kharkiv which Ukraine would lose armour building facilities. And spreading further into neighboring regions they would lose key heavy industries, and agricultural industries. And pushing further along the coast right the way to Odessa, would not only lose key trading ports, ship building, and more agricultural industries, but would also make Ukraine landlocked. It would also mean Crimea would be land linked (as opposed to bridge linked) and a link up to pro Russian areas of Transnistria and Gagauzia in Moldova. A win win situation for Russia. And severe blow to Ukraine. If they think their economy is bad now it's would be completely destroyed if this happened. And the IMF, EU, UK, and USA would have to pump a serious amount of money to stop in completely collapsing and that would come with serious conditions, including fully selling it's soul to USA. A dangerous game indeed.

kvs wrote:Ukria is f*cked up because it is a fake country.   It has no history other than basically since 1917.   It claims Kievan Rus was "Ukraine"
which is a retarded joke.   Ukria has no similarity to say Scotland and Wales.   It was not a country absorbed into the Russian Empire and
it is not a real distinct ethnos.   That a minority of Ukrainians do not speak Russian means jack shit.  Linguistic divergence can be seen in the UK even
if people still speak English.  Ukrainian is closer to the language spoken in Kiev Rus times but it is also heavily influenced by Polish thanks
to the occupation by the Grand Duchy of Poland and Lithuania.   Finland and Poland were distinct nations temporarily absorbed into the
Russian Empire.  There are other examples like the north Caucuses.

Ukr nazionalist revisionists claim that "Ukraine" was Russified.   This is a total lie.  There was never any forceful conversion to the Russian
language.  And after 1917 there was an explicit program of promotion of the Ukrainian language.   Without both western meddling and
the USSR there would be no Ukraine.   Germany explicitly sponsored Ukrainian nationalists during WWI to break away from Russia.  They
wanted Ukrainian food resources.  During WWII the Nazis also succored the nationalists now nazionalists.  After WWII, these vermin got
handed off to Washington and its pals.   The events of post 1990 Ukraine are shaped by the cold war generation of Ukr activists who
managed to take over the country since they had the financing and the "sex appeal".    Now Ukrainians are reaping this real Harvest of
Sorrow.

Anyway, the events of the last 30 years have shown that Russia is better off without this region.  It has cleaved off from Russia probably
irreversibly and would be an enormous leech on resources to try to return to the Russian fold.   This is true even if it stays and independent
state.  

   

The concept of Ukraine in opposition to "Muscovy" derives from Polish ethnographers. The Austro-Hungarians picked up that ball and ran with it. It predates 1917 by many years. The Bolsheviks like Lenin were explicitly anti-Russian, and they did everything to secure the goodwill of nationalist resentment throughout the fallen Empire. Promoting a separate Ukrainian identity was part and parcel of that.

The Catholic world (no offense to Catholics) has been cleaving off parts of the Orthodox world since the Schism.
This includes Czechia and Slovakia, and other Slavic countries that are now Catholic. Ukraine has Uniates which
were the result of forceful attempts at conversion to Catholicism. Ukrian "nationalism" arose in the wake of the
Polish occupation (basically the same crap we see in Kazakhstan with oligarchs aligning with the west compared
to Ukrian lords who were invested in Poland). But there was never a Ukrainian state until WWI and 1917.
Most of post 1990 Ukraine are not Uniates and this hard core of Ukrian nationalism is concentrated in the
west along Poland's border for obvious reasons. Novorussia (Odessa to the Donbass along the south-east)
is not part of any Ukrian identity. It should be properly part of Russia but thanks to brainwashing of the youth
since 1990 it has too many idiots who think that they are "Ukrainians" whatever that means.

It is amazing how closely the historical lines of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire match historical East-West divides in Ukraine.

It is amazing how closely the historical lines of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire match historical East-West divides in Ukraine.

Not really much of a surprise at all.

It is funny because when I went to school we were told the Germans and Soviets invaded Poland and that is where the official start of WWII is identified by our British oriented history.

No mention is made that the part of Poland that the Soviets "invaded" was the part of Russia that Poland stole from Russia in the 1917-1922 conflict they had in the middle of their foreign sponsored civil war...

Wonder if it would have made any difference if Russia had tried to take it back in the mid 1920s... I suspect the core problem was Poland was likely supported by the British...

GarryB wrote:

It is amazing how closely the historical lines of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire match historical East-West divides in Ukraine.

Not really much of a surprise at all.

It is funny because when I went to school we were told the Germans and Soviets invaded Poland and that is where the official start of WWII is identified by our British oriented history.

No mention is made that the part of Poland that the Soviets "invaded" was the part of Russia that Poland stole from Russia in the 1917-1922 conflict they had in the middle of their foreign sponsored civil war...

Wonder if it would have made any difference if Russia had tried to take it back in the mid 1920s... I suspect the core problem was Poland was likely supported by the British...

The biggest lie there is a claim, that war was started Sep 1st, 1939.
It was in full swing already, and it was a world war.
The things Italians did in Ethiopia, Japan invasion of China, war in Spain ... It was a world war, and a bloody one.
As soon as we refuse to follow anglosaxon agenda and eurocentrism, things will get much more clear.

There are shops in China with signs "no dogs&Japs allowed" to this very day.

kvs wrote:Ukria is f*cked up because it is a fake country.   It has no history other than basically since 1917.   It claims Kievan Rus was "Ukraine"
which is a retarded joke.   Ukria has no similarity to say Scotland and Wales.   It was not a country absorbed into the Russian Empire and
it is not a real distinct ethnos.   That a minority of Ukrainians do not speak Russian means jack shit.  Linguistic divergence can be seen in the UK even
if people still speak English.  Ukrainian is closer to the language spoken in Kiev Rus times but it is also heavily influenced by Polish thanks
to the occupation by the Grand Duchy of Poland and Lithuania.   Finland and Poland were distinct nations temporarily absorbed into the
Russian Empire.  There are other examples like the north Caucuses.

Ukr nazionalist revisionists claim that "Ukraine" was Russified.   This is a total lie.  There was never any forceful conversion to the Russian
language.  And after 1917 there was an explicit program of promotion of the Ukrainian language.   Without both western meddling and
the USSR there would be no Ukraine.   Germany explicitly sponsored Ukrainian nationalists during WWI to break away from Russia.  They
wanted Ukrainian food resources.  During WWII the Nazis also succored the nationalists now nazionalists.  After WWII, these vermin got
handed off to Washington and its pals.   The events of post 1990 Ukraine are shaped by the cold war generation of Ukr activists who
managed to take over the country since they had the financing and the "sex appeal".    Now Ukrainians are reaping this real Harvest of
Sorrow.

Anyway, the events of the last 30 years have shown that Russia is better off without this region.  It has cleaved off from Russia probably
irreversibly and would be an enormous leech on resources to try to return to the Russian fold.   This is true even if it stays and independent
state.  

   

Don't forget how most of modern Ukraine is WW2 era Poland, Romania and Slovakia/Hungary.
Stalin expanded Ukraine tremendously.

GarryB wrote:

It is amazing how closely the historical lines of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire match historical East-West divides in Ukraine.

Not really much of a surprise at all.

It is funny because when I went to school we were told the Germans and Soviets invaded Poland and that is where the official start of WWII is identified by our British oriented history.

No mention is made that the part of Poland that the Soviets "invaded" was the part of Russia that Poland stole from Russia in the 1917-1922 conflict they had in the middle of their foreign sponsored civil war...

Wonder if it would have made any difference if Russia had tried to take it back in the mid 1920s... I suspect the core problem was Poland was likely supported by the British...

Also left out of the innocent Polish narrative is their very eager participation in carving up Czechoslovakia in 1938 with Hitler. Rarely mentioned in the sanitized history. Also not mentioned is the financing of Hitler's rebuilding of German industry by Wall Street and London and the rejection of Stalin's attempts to form an anti-Hitler alliance in the late 1930s. Summarily rejected by the French and British. The idea of Hitler of course was as an "antidote" to Communism. He and Stalin would fight each other to a bloody draw and the "Western powers" would sweep in to pick up the pieces. Went tits up when Stalin pulled a fast one with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

That map is not correct. The yellow part was grabbed by Poland in 1920. It was a real annexation, unlike Crimea.
It was not Stalin, but Trotsky-Lenin who created the state called Ukraine and attached the Novorussian lands to it.

The Ukraine is the creation of Russian imperialism

Russian imperialism against the Poles, Lithuanians, Ottomans, Nogai Horde, Crimean Khanate, Romanians and I'm sure a bunch of others.

Without Russian imperialism the country is unraveling, pretty much in the reverse order of territories being added to it.

calripson wrote:Also left out of the innocent Polish narrative is their very eager participation in carving up Czechoslovakia in 1938 with Hitler. Rarely mentioned in the sanitized history.

Yeah I read about that, how odd.

AZ-5 wrote:

calripson wrote:Also left out of the innocent Polish narrative is their very eager participation in carving up Czechoslovakia in 1938 with Hitler. Rarely mentioned in the sanitized history.

Yeah I read about that, how odd.

The Polish ambassador to France was openly stating in his communications that Poland wanted to join a crusade against
Godless communism together with the Nazis. Czechoslovakia was not in this frame of mind at the time and as George W.
Bush said: "either you are with us, or you are against us". Also Poland had a nonaggression pact with Germany and was
an active participant in the 1938 Munich sellout.

The Hitler and Stalin divided Poland claim is total BS. Stalin was fully aware that Hitler would attack but the timing was
not all that clear. The nonaggression pact with Germany bought the USSR precious time to increase its war readiness
by 40%. Poland's pact was true friendship, the USSR's pact was based on rational self-defense.

kvs wrote:

AZ-5 wrote:

calripson wrote:Also left out of the innocent Polish narrative is their very eager participation in carving up Czechoslovakia in 1938 with Hitler. Rarely mentioned in the sanitized history.

Yeah I read about that, how odd.

The Polish ambassador to France was openly stating in his communications that Poland wanted to join a crusade against
Godless communism together with the Nazis.   Czechoslovakia was not in this frame of mind at the time and as George W.
Bush said: "either you are with us, or you are against us".   Also Poland had a nonaggression pact with Germany and was
an active participant in the 1938 Munich sellout.  

The Hitler and Stalin divided Poland claim is total BS.   Stalin was fully aware that Hitler would attack but the timing was
not all that clear.   The nonaggression pact with Germany bought the USSR precious time to increase its war readiness
by 40%.  Poland's pact was true friendship, the USSR's pact was based on rational self-defense.  

Poland had no friendship with Nazi Germany

It was just all against all

Czechoslovakia was carved up, then Poland itself. And finally the last 2 standing, Nazi Germany and the USSR - decided to settle their differences. Of course Stalin knew the German attack was coming. He just believed he had more time than he had.

But as it was yeah, the anti-commintern pact, the Spanish Civil War where the USSR and the Axis took opposite sides, and so on. No-one was under any illusions. Other than maybe Poland, that they could count on British and French support and that would be enough.

Hole wrote:So Zeppo the clown became president because he wanted to talk to the people in Donbass and make peace and now he calls them terrorists to steal the "property" of Porky. If this were a TV show it would be fun to watch. But in real life it sucks.

Zelensky played the Ukrainian president in a satire TV series before he became the actual president

And he did a far better job on TV from the scenes I seen. In real life he's a clown, and a weak leader.

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:My opinion : Russia asked guarantees it knows very well US would never accept and they said they won't negociate. So they are very likely going to take ovee Ukraine or bomb the shit out of them to make it of no use for NATO.

That's what the Soviet Union had planned for Eastern Europe. Once the U.S developed the comprehensive Assault Breaker program to fight against an adversary that has numerical superiority the USSR dropped all such plans.

Similarly, a version of Assault Breaker program today will inflict unacceptable damages on any Russian military expedition in Ukraine.

Urluber wrote:Maybe not from Putin but the deep powers are running out of patience.

Putin is the "deep power". There is no power above him.

Very optimistic, from someone who has been in Ukraine they do not have the numbers, equipment or industry to fight off any invasion. NATO estimates are entire Ukraine would fall within 2 months at most, if Putin attacked only the eastern sides then two weeks.

Russians would strike their key facilities in the first few days and cripple them, yes Ukraine would inflict some pain onto Russia.

But not nearly has as people think.

For Russia, if they DO attack Ukraine, the problem is not the invasion but the aftermath. In terms of dealing with the fallout, having to occupy it, etc. Only the eastern sections would be Russian friendly. The Western and central areas would be very opposed to them.

Has history shown unless people want to be occupied by that power, that power needs to spend vast amounts of money and lives to keep it under control.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Very optimistic, from someone who has been in Ukraine they do not have the numbers, equipment or industry to fight off any invasion. NATO estimates are entire Ukraine would fall within 2 months at most, if Putin attacked only the eastern sides then two weeks.

Russians would strike their key facilities in the first few days and cripple them, yes Ukraine would inflict some pain onto Russia.

But not nearly has as people think.

For Russia, if they DO attack Ukraine, the problem is not the invasion but the aftermath. In terms of dealing with the fallout, having to occupy it, etc. Only the eastern sections would be Russian friendly. The Western and central areas would be very opposed to them.

Has history shown unless people want to be occupied by that power, that power needs to spend vast amounts of money and lives to keep it under control.

Knock me down, thought you'd deserted us. Your first few words say something new.

Not sure why you think Russia would do anything in Ukraine other than react to a strike on Donbas by wiping out most of the Ukrainian military using stand off weapons. No invasion, apart from SF targets, necessary.

Isos wrote:Russia would wipe out all the heavy hardware and command post with air power the first days.

That is past war thinking. Why risk your manned aircraft?

One Russian, if not the main, objective will be to make a point, as brutally as possible, to US and NATO about what peer to peer warfare in the 21st Century looks like when the Russians are on the other side. To ram home the point that their world has changed, for ever.

Virtually all target locations will be known with civilian areas carefully avoided. The Gates of Hell will be opened as munitions of all types but especially missiles (ballistic and cruise), rockets and shells rain down from the sky. Think Baghdad on steroids.

The RuAF had had their fun in Syria, this will be the turn of the Army and Navy.

The role of aircraft (drones) will be to record it from the air.

EDIT

Why risk your troops? See my comment above for the much more powerful, as it is new not old war, message.

No caring military commander will regard a hot war as good training.

No-one's going to do some blitzkrieg on the Ukraine

Unless Taiwan declares independence and all hell breaks loose, then yeah maybe Russia will need to threaten European NATO to divide US forces between there and Asia

Otherwise, even if the Ukraine decides to invade the Donbass, I suspect any involvement from Russia will be limited to strikes. More is not needed.

The troops there are to show Russia means business, and to cool down whatever hot heads there are in Kiev and Europe.

JohninMK wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Very optimistic, from someone who has been in Ukraine they do not have the numbers, equipment or industry to fight off any invasion. NATO estimates are entire Ukraine would fall within 2 months at most, if Putin attacked only the eastern sides then two weeks.

Russians would strike their key facilities in the first few days and cripple them, yes Ukraine would inflict some pain onto Russia.

But not nearly as that people think.

For Russia, if they DO attack Ukraine, the problem is not the invasion but the aftermath. In terms of dealing with the fallout, having to occupy it, etc. Only the eastern sections would be Russian friendly. The Western and central areas would be very opposed to them.

Has history shown unless people want to be occupied by that power, that power needs to spend vast amounts of money and lives to keep it under control.

Knock me down, thought you'd deserted us. Your first few words say something new.

Not sure why you think Russia would do anything in Ukraine other than react to a strike on Donbas by wiping out most of the Ukrainian military using stand off weapons. No invasion, apart from SF targets, necessary.

My words where if it happened. Not will or won't they.

--------------------

John quote: "Why risk your troops? See my comment above for the much more powerful, as it is new not old war, message.

No caring military commander will regard a hot war as good training"

-----------------

Because if you need to ensure Ukraine does not join NATO which it is actively trying to do which means more NATO bases then sending in bodies is the only way to ensure that doesn't happen.

flamming_python wrote:No-one's going to do some blitzkrieg on the Ukraine

Unless Taiwan declares independence and all hell breaks loose, then yeah maybe Russia will need to threaten European NATO to divide US forces between there and Asia

Otherwise, even if the Ukraine decides to invade the Donbass, I suspect any involvement from Russia will be limited to strikes. More is not needed.

The troops there are to show Russia means business, and to cool down whatever hot heads there are in Kiev and Europe.

War with Ukraine is within the realm of possibility, to denounce it has not possible is a critical error.

It will entirely depend on how matters play out, while its not likely to happen it can still occur.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

flamming_python wrote:No-one's going to do some blitzkrieg on the Ukraine

Unless Taiwan declares independence and all hell breaks loose, then yeah maybe Russia will need to threaten European NATO to divide US forces between there and Asia

Otherwise, even if the Ukraine decides to invade the Donbass, I suspect any involvement from Russia will be limited to strikes. More is not needed.

The troops there are to show Russia means business, and to cool down whatever hot heads there are in Kiev and Europe.

War with Ukraine is within the realm of possibility, to denounce it has not possible is a critical error.

It will entirely depend on how matters play out, while its not likely to happen it can still occur.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I objected to what it would look like.

Annihilating the country's infrastructure and killing thousands of conscripts would be completely counterproductive to any conceivable Russian goal in the Ukraine

This is not Iraq to the US, to demonstrate "shock and awe" on. This is a country which neighbors Russia and where millions of Russians have family ties to. And where there are still many, many reasonable people left, even if they have to censor themselves or hide their true opinions.

Rebuilding wouldn't be that hard war is about crushing if it comes down to that you will not give the enemy a chance to extended the duration.

Russia would strike the facilities if they felt necessary. Of course no one here can say how it will go, I am merely offering an educated opinion.