Chit Chat

What a load of balderdash! Ukraine started the whole thing by violently overthrowing a democratically elected government and proceeded to engage in ethnic cleansing against Russian speaking minority in Donetsk and Luhansk and basically goading Russia into a conflict. Russia tried every bit to avoid this conflict by signing Minsk accords I and II and repeatedly asked Europe and Ukraine to abide by the Minsk accords II in which they never had any intention to do so. As for taking Crimea, Russia was proven correct that it was essential in taking over Crimea in order to protect the population there in and preserve its historical claims to that area. Look at what happened to Serbia and Kosovo. Look at Donetsk and Luhansk.

Europe promised that NATO wouldn’t expand to the borders of Russia and yet it did and they are trying to do the same thing with Ukraine and Belarus. What you wrote is just poppycock.
Fair points on Ukraine being responsible for triggering this war in the first place. But you can't deny Russians leapt at the chance of getting more land and warm water ports. While NATO is at fault for endlessly testing Russia's patience and using every trick to provoke Russia, Russians themselves leapt at the opportunity. Russia has always wanted it's former satellite states to remain under it's influence. And this is how a SMO turns into occupation. You can skip over the democracy bit, because Russia itself is anything but. Russians chimped out because their sphere of influence was shrinking. And after Crimea, Ukraine wanted security guarantees. And it's always the case that these Eastern Europeans countries like to lean towards the west for economic reasons.

Now, the Ukrainian leadership is so corrupt they figured they could make easy money by kissing the feet of NATO/US, let NATO take care of their security, and get subsidies by joining the EU. Obviously didn't fly. But Russia itself launched this SMO with vague stated goals. Their real goal has always been to teach Ukraine a lesson for disobeying Russia's sphere of influence. Either by massive destruction of Ukrainian infra and land seizure, or forcing them to come to the negotiation table with their heads sunk low and basically get fuck all for signing a "peace treaty". Now you and I can keep arguing when did this really began, 2022, 2014 or right after 1991 ? But for the Ukrainian people this land grab and perpetually living in the shadow of a volatile antagonistic superpower is unacceptable. Now we can keep memeing about how Ukrainians fucked around and now they are finding out and reaping what they sowed. But this has frankly gone too far, and Russians being opportunistic scumbags are quite happy to salami slice Ukraine for another 5-6 years in trench warfare. The "reparations" Russia is exacting here, is disproportionate to Ukraine's original follies. Russians already won the cake. Now they want more cream. Will this end with Ukraine ceding the lost territories ? No. Russia also wants Ukraine to disarm, never join NATO or EU, and neuter their foreign policies. For any country this is unacceptable. Hence I called it the modern equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles.

Every country in the region, save for maybe Belarus annd Hungary, dislike Russia. NATO isn't walking into the region uninvited, these countries want to join NATO, EU, the western sphere of economic heft and diplomatic pull. You think Ukraine will remain neutral towards Russia after this war concludes ? NATO will roll into the neighbourhood sooner or later in some capacity. And Russians will have to live with the fact that none of it's western neighbours like it very much.

Russians should've ended this war already by annexing the land. They are sticking around just to see the end of Ukraine thoroughly. They won't accept any peace deals. Their claims are so outrageous it's tantamount to national suicide for the other side. They know they are doing irreversible damage to Ukraine's demographic. Regardless, Russians have more or less won this conflict. There is no feasible way for AFU to regain the lost territories unless a multi-national cooalition commits troops and hardware to the frontline. Which these malicious spineless shitstain Europeans won't do. Americans are winding down their support within the next financial year. But I expect a low intensity war to keep going for another few years with limited European assistance. Zelensky came this far, denied national elections, if he stops now he won't live much longer. Since Ukrainians are going to be deported from a few countries, the supply line of conscripts won't dry up soon in a limited conflict. You can disagree with my arguements, and that is perfectly fine and might even be reasonable.​
 
Last edited:
Fair points on Ukraine being responsible for triggering this war in the first place. But you can't deny Russians leapt at the chance of getting more land and warm water ports. While NATO is at fault for endlessly testing Russia's patience and using every trick to provoke Russia, Russians themselves leapt at the opportunity. Russia has always wanted it's former satellite states to remain under it's influence. And this is how a SMO turns into occupation. You can skip over the democracy bit, because Russia itself is anything but. Russians chimped out because their sphere of influence was shrinking. And after Crimea, Ukraine wanted security guarantees. And it's always the case that these Eastern Europeans countries like to lean towards the west for economic reasons.

Now, the Ukrainian leadership is so corrupt they figured they could make easy money by kissing the feet of NATO/US, let NATO take care of their security, and get subsidies by joining the EU. Obviously didn't fly. But Russia itself launched this SMO with vague stated goals. Their real goal has always been to teach Ukraine a lesson for disobeying Russia's sphere of influence. Either by massive destruction of Ukrainian infra and land seizure, or forcing them to come to the negotiation table with their heads sunk low and basically get fuck all for signing a "peace treaty". Now you and I can keep arguing when did this really began, 2022, 2014 or right after 1991 ? But for the Ukrainian people this land grab and perpetually living in the shadow of a volatile antagonistic superpower is unacceptable. Now we can keep memeing about how Ukrainians fucked around and now they are finding out and reaping what they sowed. But this has frankly gone too far, and Russians being opportunistic scumbags are quite happy to salami slice Ukraine for another 5-6 years in trench warfare. The "reparations" Russia is exacting here, is disproportionate to Ukraine's original follies. Russians already won the cake. Now they want more cream. Will this end with Ukraine ceding the lost territories ? No. Russia also wants Ukraine to disarm, never join NATO or EU, and neuter their foreign policies. For any country this is unacceptable. Hence I called it the modern equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles.

Every country in the region, save for maybe Belarus annd Hungary, dislike Russia. NATO isn't walking into the region uninvited, these countries want to join NATO, EU, the western sphere of economic heft and diplomatic pull. You think Ukraine will remain neutral towards Russia after this war concludes ? NATO will roll into the neighbourhood sooner or later in some capacity. And Russians will have to live with the fact that none of it's western neighbours like it very much.

Russians should've ended this war already by annexing the land. They are sticking around just to see the end of Ukraine thoroughly. They won't accept any peace deals. Their claims are so outrageous it's tantamount to national suicide for the other side. They know they are doing irreversible damage to Ukraine's demographic. Regardless, Russians have more or less won this conflict. There is no feasible way for AFU to regain the lost territories unless a multi-national cooalition commits troops and hardware to the frontline. Which these malicious spineless shitstain Europeans won't do. Americans are winding down their support within the next financial year. But I expect a low intensity war to keep going for another few years with limited European assistance. Zelensky came this far, denied national elections, if he stops now he won't live much longer. Since Ukrainians are going to be deported from a few countries, the supply line of conscripts won't dry up soon in a limited conflict. You can disagree with my arguements, and that is perfectly fine and might even be reasonable.​
A Treaty of Versailles usually is an interregnum between 2 wars which is exactly how this will be resolved.

I expect the European component of NATO smarting under Trump's withdrawal from the Ukraine war to defy him by keeping the conflict going till as far as they can .

How long ? 6 months to a year probably slightly more but for Europe to re arm & reorient its policies would be much more problematic than they think for this is 2-3 generations who've enjoyed the peace dividend we're talking about , something which hasn't happened in Europe in the entire previous millenium.

Then there's the economy to be considered which is growing increasingly anaemic. Long term an EU which emerges as a separate pole of influence is neither in our interests nor the US's interests or in China's interests though the latter may pretend so to drive a wedge between the US & EU . We certainly don't want a sanctimonious EU meddling in our affairs .

Which is the reason a second war of Ukraine is inevitable & welcome from our perspective. Russia would play the role of Germany in WW-2 & would go down but not before taking EU along with it . No US to come to their rescue with a Marshall Plan later either not after the US itself will be in a face off against China.

Once the war in Ukraine is over , time for EU to deal with the peacefuls at home which is easier said than done with their rising numbers thanks to a high TFR & the native populations falling numbers & an even poorer TFR. Add to that the number of illegal immigrants who'd keep streaming in . Match made in heaven - EU & the peacefuls.

Alhamdulillah !
 
Russia has always wanted it's former satellite states to remain under it's influence.​

All large and powerful nations - US/Russia/China - obviously want to have their demarcated areas of influence/dominance. Heck even a weak and plodding country like ours keep at it n nepal/bhutan/SL/etc. So no surprises Russia 'leapt at the opportunity' to retain keep ukr under their thumb. What is surprising is the leaping didn't happen earlier.

So yes, Ukraine FAFO. Those who cheered 2014 got butchered. Fair enough.
 
Russia has always wanted it's former satellite states to remain under it's influence.​

All large and powerful nations - US/Russia/China - obviously want to have their demarcated areas of influence/dominance. Heck even a weak and plodding country like ours keep at it n nepal/bhutan/SL/etc. So no surprises Russia 'leapt at the opportunity' to retain keep ukr under their thumb. What is surprising is the leaping didn't happen earlier.

So yes, Ukraine FAFO. Those who cheered 2014 got butchered. Fair enough.
 
there are these defence conclaves and defence lectures that happen thru out the year, some of these conferences are available online, but not of all of them i presume. most of these presentations are based on open source info, and same data being presented in various manner. but once in a while, there are very interesting presentations and discussions.

what seems to be happening is that, controversy of the week is over shadowing the conversations. unless there is some controversy, MSM does not focus on it. now defence fandom is also beginning to become analogue of MSM, with focus on "he said she said" controversies. and that one or two minute of discussions which could give useful insights in these lectures and conferences gets lost in the five six hours of live stream video.

is there a journo / journal / individual that tracks these conferences in a dedicated manner? preferably someone who avoids focussing on controversies.
 
there are these defence conclaves and defence lectures that happen thru out the year, some of these conferences are available online, but not of all of them i presume. most of these presentations are based on open source info, and same data being presented in various manner. but once in a while, there are very interesting presentations and discussions.

what seems to be happening is that, controversy of the week is over shadowing the conversations. unless there is some controversy, MSM does not focus on it. now defence fandom is also beginning to become analogue of MSM, with focus on "he said she said" controversies. and that one or two minute of discussions which could give useful insights in these lectures and conferences gets lost in the five six hours of live stream video.

is there a journo / journal / individual that tracks these conferences in a dedicated manner? preferably someone who avoids focussing on controversies.
None to my knowledge . I used to visit every forum I knew of once upon a time & read well informed members with great interest , subscribe to videos they recommended , read articles they linked , if possible , read thru those publications if it was free , read books they recommended online or bought them if they were affordable.

This was in the pre 2016 era. Then twitter happened. While I wasn't an active participant on Twitter initially only opting to comment once the lockdown started , I started by following those same accounts of people whom I read with great interest on BRF or DFI & later PDF. Nowadays all such information is disseminated mostly on Twitter .

On a slightly different but similar note - The action has definitely shifted to Twitter. You get to interact with a wider audience. Which is the reason I think forums such as these have a limited shelf life unfortunately.

Look at the quality of young ones here. At their age Indranil , Rohit , Suraj , Nilesh Rane , Saurav & so many others who didn't transition to Twitter & eventually stopped posting on BRF , used to give veterans hell for leather with their penetrating insights on BRF. Ditto with DFI though I stopped visiting DFI 2015-16 onwards. I made the switch to accessing sites thru cell phones & there was a formatting issue then with DFI which they didn't resolve for a long time IIRC.

I don't see any 20 something whomsoever in that league around. There's that insecure boy from Goa , Neil whose articulation is excellent as well his knowledge of most fighter aircrafts. Most of the other guys here his age are interested in Special Forces , IA , Small Arms & Ammo , IA Armoured Vehicles , Artillery perhaps , which isn't bad at all.

But very few into Aerial systems , Naval Vessels whether surface or sub surface , Naval Aviation , all things Cyber , Ballistic & Cruise Missiles , BMDs , Radars etc .

I guess most have made the move to Twitter . Had to get this off my chest . Was thinking about it for a long time.
 

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Back
Top