Russian Troop Movements Reported Near Ukraine

Russian answer to the Bayraktar T2B threat from the Ukraine .



Shame they only have six so far but want to buy another 24 in 2022.
 

Attachments

  • 97BADACE-3BD0-49E1-A6CA-12A34A0BE5EF.jpeg
    97BADACE-3BD0-49E1-A6CA-12A34A0BE5EF.jpeg
    205.6 KB · Views: 61
I think that this is a good time to remind everyone of a couple of excellent papers issued earlier this year, when Moscow first began to amass significant forces around Ukraine:


and


Both papers remain highly relevant to the topic concerned.

I was also looking for a map I constructed and posted earlier in the thread. It pictured my hypothetical musings on what a massive offensive against Ukraine by the Russian Armed Forces might look like. Unfortunately my ARRSE-foo is has not worked in this case.
 
Much like the election of 2004?
Which was apparently ruled unfair by the Ukrainian supreme court. I'm sure somebody mentioned it earlier.

They didn't unfortunately mention whether the UkrSC ruled Yanukovych was barred from standing for re-election or whether a pro-Moscow manifesto was incompatible with democracy, so I guess we'll never know in precisely which way the 2010 free and fair election doesn't count.
 
You are now becoming pathetic – either you see it, and you deserve half a mark for doggedness; or you don’t, and you are dolt !
No, I get it. It's OK for people we like to remove a head of government without the mandated process, but heaven forfend anyone else tries it! That's undemocratic.
 
No, I get it. It's OK for people we like to remove a head of government without the mandated process, but heaven forfend anyone else tries it! That's undemocratic.
As previously explained, using the same ultra-legalsitic argument you would rather let your house burn down on the Sabbath than connect and switch on a fire hose.

Odd that you never argue the case that it was wrong that Moscow actually signed a treaty guaranteeing the integrity of Ukraine's Borders, but then saw fit to violate them.
 
As previously explained, using the same ultra-legalsitic argument you would rather let your house burn down on the Sabbath than connect and switch on a fire hose.
I would use the hose. I wouldn't deny other people the right to use a hose on their own fires, just because I didn't like the way they'd decorated their interior - which is the way your analogy works in our usual practice.

Odd that you never argue the case that it was wrong that Moscow actually signed a treaty guaranteeing the integrity of Ukraine's Borders, but then saw fit to violate them.
Wait, so a treaty is now an absolute-and-forever-cannot-be-changed agreement?

But that would mean that the Little Treaty of Versailles (signed and ratified by Poland 1919, renounced 1934) currently defines the borders of modern Poland!

It's odd that you never argue the multiple Polish wars of expansion in the 1920s - in direct violation of their treaty obligations from Versailles - are any indication of a Warsaw Mindset.
 
. . . so I guess we'll never know in precisely which way the 2010 free and fair election doesn't count.

Well, we do: that his 2004 election was acknowledged, both internally and internationally, as having been stolen: that the majority of the populace were less than enamoured of that result laid the seed for the Orange Revolution.

The source of unrest which led to EuroMaidan can be traced back to that period.

As I have said before, your love of Communist-inspired dictatorships is rather unsettling.
 
I would use the hose. I wouldn't deny other people the right to use a hose on their own fires, just because I didn't like the way they'd decorated their interior - which is the way your analogy works in our usual practice.
......... But you are. You deny the right of the Ukrainian people to have acted to save their country before it was sold out to Moscow by Yanukovych.

............. Wait, so a treaty is now an absolute-and-forever-cannot-be-changed agreement?

But that would mean that the Little Treaty of Versailles (signed and ratified by Poland 1919, renounced 1934) currently defines the borders of modern Poland!

It's odd that you never argue the multiple Polish wars of expansion in the 1920s - in direct violation of their treaty obligations from Versailles - are any indication of a Warsaw Mindset.
This is pure whataboutery irrelevant to the matter in hand. However I shal answer you

The Versailles treaty never established Poland's eastern borders, but I have always argued that the Polish government of the interwar years did make serious mistakes (especially vis-avis Lithuania and Czechoslovakia).

What you so tellinglly call "the Polish wars of expansion" were an attempt to create stability out of a fluid post-WW1 region and to originally help the (re)nascent Ukrainian and Belarusian nations free themselves from Moscow (which of course they tried to do much later in the 20th century and are still struggling, especially Belarus) and create a safe space from Muscovite aggression in the shape of an "Intermarium Federation".

This then turned into a fight for survival as the Red Army defeated its White opponents and turned its focus on conquering Europe (assisted by major Communist movements in Germany, France and Italy). The Poles stopped this thrust decisively at the Battle of Warsaw and shattered the Red Army. However Moscow kept most of Ukraine and Belarus (and as history proved - most unfortunately for the fates of the populations on the USSR side of the border - particularly in Ukraine).

The only way that this is relevant to today's discussion about Muscovite aggression is that Moscow has not changed its spots and still seeks to expand westwards to subdue and swallow up the Belarusian and Ukrainian nations.
 
A podcast with a in-depth, very good and logical argument that Moscow is finalising preparations to be able to rapidly invade Ukraine once the final decision is taken by the Kremlin:


Good emphasis on various combat indicators.

Also a very logical and detailed look at Moscow's aims, its reasoning how to achieve them and its options to do so all narrowing down to effectively endorse an invasion of Ukraine in the very near future as it otherwise sees Ukraine slipping away from its grasp. Moscow has been unable to bring Ukraine to heel with diplomacy. Moscow's reasoning is that it cannot afford for Ukraine to be independent and self-assertive and it would be harder to regain Ukraine later in the future, than it is to do so now.
 
Last edited:
that the majority of the populace were less than enamoured of that result laid the seed for the Orange Revolution.
Odd behaviour for a less than enamoured population that they returned him to power in free and fair elections on the very next occasion. I don't think the evidence supports your theory.


As I have said before, your love of Communist-inspired dictatorships is rather unsettling.
It's an odd dictator that was installed in power and returned their by the express will of the people despite opportunities to remove him by the available legal methods.

I do not think that means what you think it means.
 
This is pure whataboutery irrelevant to the matter in hand.
It's amazing how many inconvenient parallels have turned out to be, isn't it?
The Versailles treaty never established Poland's eastern borders
The Little Treaty established that Poland was as it was at the signing of the treaty. Whether Poland disagreed or not was neither here not there.


I have always argued that the Polish government of the interwar years did make serious mistakes
You've never argued that these serious mistakes were a breach of treaty and the waging of aggressive war. We know you know these acts constitute same, you're quick to point it out the very instant the word 'Russia' is mentioned.
What you so tellinglly call "the Polish wars of expansion" were an attempt to create stability out of a fluid post-WW1 region and to originally help the (re)nascent Ukrainian and Belarusian nations free themselves from Moscow
What you so tellingly call "the Russian wars of expansion" were an attempt to create stability out of a fluid post Cold War region. Does that actually matter, though?

Did the Poles, by any chance, happen to ask the Ukrainians an and Belorussian people's if they wanted Polish help to become Polish?
 
A very nice phrase that sums up your own position.
That free and fair elections are not indicative of a dictatorship?

Better let the OED know, too.
 
It's amazing how many inconvenient parallels have turned out to be, isn't it?
Yes it is and you are desperate to change the subject from Moscow's continuous aggression against its neighbours to a "But, but, but, whatabout Poland in the past?"

But it is true that Poland has always been in Moscow's sights and that Stalin and Hitler were very happy with their pact to exterminate once and for all the "Bastard child of Versailles" what their Prussian and Tsarist predecessors had failed to do.

How convenient would it be for you today if my Grandparents and their whole families had perished in the Gulag (as it was the intention of the NKVD to round them all up - they were on the list for the cattle cars to Siberia). Luckily they only got one grandad and he survived (tough bloke) and got out with the Anders Army.

The problem is not in Warsaw. The problem is Moscow.

Warsaw supports Belarusian and Ukrainian independence and statehood. Moscow wants (needs) to crush it.

No more whataboutery sidetracking!
 
Yes it is and you are desperate to change the subject from Moscow's continuous aggression against its neighbours to a "But, but, but, whatabout Poland in the past?"
I'm desperate to nail you to a consistent position on aggression, invading neighbours and violating treaties.

It's not going well I can tell you.
How convenient would it be for you today if my Grandparents and their whole families had perished in the Gulag
Not in the slightest convenient. Not in the slightest inconvenient, either. I wouldn't be affected either way.

How inconvenient to you, if you're being honest, is the deaths of so many Russians at the hands of invaders who've tried to wipe Russia and/or Slavs from the map? I'll wager not a jot either.
 
I'm desperate to nail you to a consistent position on aggression, invading neighbours and violating treaties.

It's not going well I can tell you.

Not in the slightest convenient. Not in the slightest inconvenient, either. I wouldn't be affected either way.

How inconvenient to you, if you're being honest, is the deaths of so many Russians at the hands of invaders who've tried to wipe Russia and/or Slavs from the map? I'll wager not a jot either.
Oh, I care about the lives of all people. I care about their freedom, their civil liberties, their rights. Moscow does not.

Since the end of the Mongol yoke more subjects of Moscow have been killed by their own rulers than by invading armies. The Kremlin cares not a jot about the lives of its subjects, just the control it has over them and their usefulness to the central authority.

Now stop your wibbling and craven legalistic defence of Moscow (and Beijing).


Back on topic.

History is repeating itself a century later. Just as the Russian Revolutions and the end of WW1 precipitated a state of flux and a retreat of the western edge of the Muscovite Empire - so did the end of the Cold War.

Then as now the Kremlin desired to get its previously controlled territories and nations back under its jackboots (and expand further). In 1920, they were stopped at Warsaw with what was called the "Miracle on the Vistula" and thrown back eastwards. Are they now going to be stopped at Ky'iv with a "Miracle on the Dnipro" and thrown back eastwards?

I certainly hope so, for the sake of the Russian peoples themselves. Because the greatest potential for the eventual freedom of the Russian peoples is the example of the freedom of their immediate neighbours to west.
 
Anyone have any idea why they have a Paddington bear tied up, hanging from the barrel with a yellow hat and gimp mask on ?
 

Attachments

  • 2C02D2C7-6024-46E8-AFB6-EF5DCC8B58D5.jpeg
    2C02D2C7-6024-46E8-AFB6-EF5DCC8B58D5.jpeg
    205.6 KB · Views: 56
I care about their freedom, their civil liberties, their rights.
Unless they happen to have chosen a direction for themselves you don't like, at which point their freedom to choose for themselves, their liberty to have their elections respected and their right to due process can take a flying **** to itself.

Oh, or unless they happen to live on some land on which Poland would like to settle it's border several hundred miles east.

But that was just a mistake, wasn't it? - when the lunchlady asked what they'd like, they meant to say, "Fish fingers and chips, please" but it came out as, "Occupy Vilnius!"
 

Latest Threads

Top