Discussion: Relations with Russia

If NATO troops enter Ukraine on suicide missions, North Korean troops might come in to acquire combat experience.

Not mentioned, we could also see Iranian, Syrian, etc troops.

For some time, Russia’s chattering classes have speculated about possibilities for enlisting some of North Korea’s one million man army to help their forces in the ground war in Ukraine. Now, under conditions of the newly signed military alliance with Pyongyang, these same Russians are saying that should NATO forces enter Ukraine to join the fight against them, as Emmanuel Macron has been urging, then Russia may invite 50,000 or more North Koreans to lend a hand to their cause. Moreover, they note that the North Koreans have some very impressive artillery pieces to bring with them to the fight.
If that kind of talk on Russian television is being ignored by the military attaché in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow I would be very surprised.


Nothing to worry about? South Korea sounds the alarm
 
It is difficult to interpret Russian strategy. What the Russian army does is gets the high ground wherever it can, plants land lines, waits for the Ukrainians to walk on land mines, advance 200 meters at a time. I don't know that the world has ever seen a slow war of attrition like this, though it does get compared to WW1 and The American Civil War.

What this task does "accomplish" is it drains Ukrainian society of able bodied men aged 16-65. This does "demilitarize" Ukraine but at a great cost. And Russia has itself lost 100,000 men.

And we know that the Russian public is dissatisfied with Putin's ultra cautious approach.

My best guess is that the Russian army is keeping most of its troops in reserve because:
- They expect an eventual NATO intervention.
- They think a slow grind is diplomatically and economically advantageous.
- Slow-boiling NATO reduces the odds they use tactical nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, but circling back to the American civil war analogy, the Confederacy was gradually losing until it rapidly collapsed. But the Confederacy wasn't being propped up by 40 countries.
 
It is difficult to interpret Russian strategy. What the Russian army does is gets the high ground wherever it can, plants land lines, waits for the Ukrainians to walk on land mines, advance 200 meters at a time. I don't know that the world has ever seen a slow war of attrition like this, though it does get compared to WW1 and The American Civil War.

What this task does "accomplish" is it drains Ukrainian society of able bodied men aged 16-65. This does "demilitarize" Ukraine but at a great cost. And Russia has itself lost 100,000 men.

And we know that the Russian public is dissatisfied with Putin's ultra cautious approach.

My best guess is that the Russian army is keeping most of its troops in reserve because:
- They expect an eventual NATO intervention.
- They think a slow grind is diplomatically and economically advantageous.
- Slow-boiling NATO reduces the odds they use tactical nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, but circling back to the American civil war analogy, the Confederacy was gradually losing until it rapidly collapsed. But the Confederacy wasn't being propped up by 40 countries.

Russia is a very artillery based army. And as Ukraine gets the weapons to target their artillery, their progress slows.
 
Russia has recently made visible efforts to improve its relations with Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea. I'll discuss the 1% that I know. These are countries the USSR had great relations with, but 1990s Russia largely walked away from out of its then poverty and desire to appease the West due to a dream of becoming part of the West.

Cuba

I have no idea what sending the Russian navy to Cuba could do, as the USA obviously militarily dominates the Caribbean. That said Cuba should be supported. It is a victim of idiotic US sanctions going back to 1959, and its most valuable port (Guantanamo Bay) is under illegal US occupation. Cuba does do some things well, it has an impressive health care system, and they were able to develop their own COVID vaccines.

North Korea

Trump had a good idea for five minutes -- liberalize trade with North Korea. Would have been great for the USA. He was sabotaged by partisan freaks and his own stupid hires, people like John Bolton who suggested adopting a Libya strategy for North Korea, as in get them to demilitarize with false promises of liberalization and then bomb them.

North Korea makes great weapons in abundance, is ready to provide troops, and has a skilled workforce. Russia needs more skilled workers due to their labor shortage. North Korea in turn gets more security (they won't have famines anymore), and help with the parts of their weapons that don't work.

Vietnam

Ancient culture with 100+ million people, the world's second fastest growing economy and one of the world's best education systems. Arguably the heart of ASEAN (with Malaysia, Cambodia, etc). Should have been done a long time ago.
 
Also, Crimea has been able to be targeted for quite some time. I'm sorry you are taking a vacation in a war zone?
 
Also, Crimea has been able to be targeted for quite some time. I'm sorry you are taking a vacation in a war zone?
I'm honestly surprised to see you condoning the deliberate targeting of civilians.
 
"Russia blames" is always such a delusional line.
The US wouldnt have supplied missiles if there wouldnt be a War that Russia started.
Invading Ukraine is what lead to everything.
Yeah......complete and utter horse crap. The level of civilian casualties inflicted upon the people of Ukraine demands the ability to strike wherever said assaults are coming from. Russia started this war plain and simple. While there have been atrocities in the last 80 years during civil unrest/wars, nobody in NATO has attacked Russia. NATO didn't attack Georgia. NATO didn't attack Ukraine. While of course NATO wants to expand alliances, they aren't the one bemoaning the breakup of the Soviet Union while simultaneously, and detrimentally, transforming their economy. Putin has made it clear he wants to rebuild Imperial Russia.....this time for the worse. Some people don't seem to mind completely corrupt authoritarian political systems, and look for their silver linings, but the fact is that they will never cease their oppression of others until forced to do so.
 
NATO didn't attack Ukraine.
In time, most will come to come to terms with the fact that the bloody 2014 coup against the Ukrainian government was illegal and backed by NATO, and was the start of this current conflict and the attacks on civilians.

That is already overwhelmingly confirmed by the evidence, but feelings will remain hot for some time. Time heals those kinds of wounds. Nowadays, people don't bat an eye when it's correctly stated that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag, or that the installation of Pinochet's authoritarian regime in Chile was backed by the CIA. More recently, people are more likely to accept that there was never any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, or that Covid-19 may have been a lab leak.
 
Last edited:
I'm honestly surprised to see you condoning the deliberate targeting of civilians.

1. It wasn't. The civilian deaths on the beach are the result of of Russia's anti air defenses shooting down Ukrainian missiles. The beach was not deliberately targeted. And frankly, blaming Ukraine on debris dangers is eating up Russia propaganda whole sale. Crimea has many legitimate targets. So yeah, my glib point stands, don't vacation in a war zone.

2. As for Russian civilian casualties, considering how much Russia deliberately is trying to cause that, I am not going to decry Ukraine for doing a few times. Much as while I know Ukraine has done their own fair share of war crimes, there is a scale of comparison.
 
1. It wasn't. The civilian deaths on the beach are the result of of Russia's anti air defenses shooting down Ukrainian missiles. The beach was not deliberately targeted. And frankly, blaming Ukraine on debris dangers is eating up Russia propaganda whole sale. Crimea has many legitimate targets. So yeah, my glib point stands, don't vacation in a war zone.

2. As for Russian civilian casualties, considering how much Russia deliberately is trying to cause that, I am not going to decry Ukraine for doing a few times. Much as while I know Ukraine has done their own fair share of war crimes, there is a scale of comparison.
So, if I read (half of) this conversation right, someone is complaining about Russian civilians in Crimea being targeted? :funny: That's rich in dark humor and contradictory on so many levels. The fact is that Russia started this situation when their puppet targeted protestors with his police and then flew the coop. This isn't the first time something like this has happened, but Ukraine and NATO were not interested in attacking Russian soil. That is a Russian tactic shown in spades over the last 10 years. All of this is Putin's hyperbole. His goal is to bring others under, essentially, Russian rule by force if necessary. Quite the contrast when you consider Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Arguments to the contrary are basically road apples left by horses. I've heard the arguments. They're tiresome and I got tired of being tired.
 
Yeah......complete and utter horse crap. The level of civilian casualties inflicted upon the people of Ukraine demands the ability to strike wherever said assaults are coming from. Russia started this war plain and simple. While there have been atrocities in the last 80 years during civil unrest/wars, nobody in NATO has attacked Russia. NATO didn't attack Georgia. NATO didn't attack Ukraine. While of course NATO wants to expand alliances, they aren't the one bemoaning the breakup of the Soviet Union while simultaneously, and detrimentally, transforming their economy. Putin has made it clear he wants to rebuild Imperial Russia.....this time for the worse. Some people don't seem to mind completely corrupt authoritarian political systems, and look for their silver linings, but the fact is that they will never cease their oppression of others until forced to do so.
Agreed. This attack wasn't Ukraine 's fault, this was all Putin. :(
 
1. It wasn't. The civilian deaths on the beach are the result of of Russia's anti air defenses shooting down Ukrainian missiles. The beach was not deliberately targeted. And frankly, blaming Ukraine on debris dangers is eating up Russia propaganda whole sale. Crimea has many legitimate targets. So yeah, my glib point stands, don't vacation in a war zone.

2. As for Russian civilian casualties, considering how much Russia deliberately is trying to cause that, I am not going to decry Ukraine for doing a few times. Much as while I know Ukraine has done their own fair share of war crimes, there is a scale of comparison.

I do not blame Ukraine. If I did write a comment blaming Ukraine, that was sloppy writing on my part.

The cluster bombs are built, paid for, administered, and guided by the USA, and Ukraine is a hostage proxy. The majority of the population of Ukraine wants peace and neutrality which is well documented. I think that 72% of Ukrainians voted for Zelensky on a platform of peace with Russia, which he was not allowed to implement. They are definitely victims.

The purpose of targeting civilians (it's happening a lot) is to try and provoke a stronger reaction from Russia. From a purely Machiavellian standpoint, that is completely rational given the desire of many in power to expand the war.

I don't personally share that desire. And I think in two years if Americans are drafted and sent to die pointless deaths there, you'll have wished that the will of the Ukrainian people had been respected.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"