[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by turbo_delight

Military should fight war. Not common man.

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

In times of war, citizens are drafted to fight for their country. Don't really like it but that's how it is.

A reply purely based on semantics. All of this is clearly defined in the Geneva conventions over the years. Mods - Please delete this post if this is unwarranted.

Combatants of war is defined and differentiated by privileged and unprivileged. Former is entitled for the rights such as Prisoner of War, repatriation as well the even the food allowance for the upkeep to preserve the solider and his dignity in case of capture. Latter is any other person entering the war who does not have any rights as above.

Original convention states only the Sovereign military belongs to the first class. Later I think Post WW2, it is extended even to the people in the war front. Don't know whether it is ratified by all countries.

So when common public takes up arms with military or political support, it becomes organized resistance. Example: Finnish war and the infamous 'Molotov' cocktails. Though later Geneva convention recognizes this group, there are certain conditions to it and not ratified by all countries.

The last one is the unorganized resistance which all of us know as as guerrilla warfare which absolutely does not have any protection.

Conscription is mandatory military service of all able bodied men and women attaining a particular age (18 generally) that can be at peace time as well war time irrespective of their personal beliefs. Very few countries still have it.

Generally when war breaks out, a nation can call a 'General mobilization'. This means all military leaves cancelled, all peace time reserves to report to active duty at front and previous conscripts can also be added to the active service which generally will involve defense and non combat duties. They are fully privileged as stated above.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by SnS_12

So, either he is lacking a spine to challenge Russia directly or he is being the leader the world really wants by showing restraint and avoiding WWIII.

Mate, it may not be a question about spine or bravado. One enters into a war (directly or indirectly) with certain goals in mind (typically a mix of political and financial), and builds a strategy and has tactical plans to achieve what is worthwhile keeping costs, benefits and opportunities, threats, and risks in mind.

Demonstrated bravado, if at all, is also usually a part of those plans. Not showing it too can very much be so.

[vishnurp99]

According to news items, India is considering buying discounted Russian oil and other commodities. I doubt if we will actually go and do it but the implications of this choice is interesting.

Between the devil and the deep sea!

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/...ay-2022-03-14/

[CarNerd]

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

Russian demands are not just these three things. Russian demands include the reversal of things/policies from 2014 namely

1. Official recognition of Russian language
2. Revert to Russian Orthodox church
3. Most important one is the changing the constitution to become parliamentary style from Presidential style
It may probably include some secret demands for Post war economic contracts

Can you please share your sources of information because I don't think these are the demands that Russia has put forward to end the war:

http://youtu.be/qLzwnRJTYxA

Another Link: https://https://7news.com.au/sunrise...aine-c-5969629

Some news reports state Ukrainian demilitarization as the fourth demand but it's unclear. I don't think Russia intends to re-unify Soviet Union because it has learnt the lesson from the Afghan invasion. It just wants the former Soviet States to agree with it just like Britain and other allies agree with the US.

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

One of the foundational aspects of diplomacy is to talk, talk and talk whether it is your allies or enemies, whether it is peace or war.

There's a saying: "Prevention is better than cure". If he had kept talking with the Russians during peace, His country wouldn't be at war.

For all the talks of bravery, fighting till the last, etc, Why didn't he think of getting back Crimea? Wasn't that an illegal invasion and annexation of Ukranian Territory? What made him think he could defeat Russia this time?

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

I can only remember the stance taken by Stalin which is to fight and defend till the last man standing.

The same Stalin had made a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1939. They both committed themselves not to aid each other's enemies or to engage in hostile acts against one another.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by Sran

Interesting watch: Ukraine on Fire. (https://rumble.com/vwxxi8-ukraine-on-fire.html)
...
The documentary has been removed by Youtube as usual and is available on rumble.

Thanks for recommending this, mate. The part I've sewn till now appears impressive and relevant.

Incidentally, to send the link to a friend, I searched for it and found that it is available on YouTube as well. Being age-restricted, it needs a sign-in.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNGvaDUs

[SnS_12]

Originally Posted by Poitive

Mate, it may not be a question about spine or bravado. One enters into a war (directly or indirectly) with certain goals in mind (typically a mix of political and financial), and builds a strategy and has tactical plans to achieve what is worthwhile keeping costs, benefits and opportunities, threats, and risks in mind.

Demonstrated bravado, if at all, is also usually a part of those plans. Not showing it too can very much be so.

When it comes to the US its president is one of the most feared in political circles among all nations and hence, just the threat of sanctions was enough to keep a country in check. But, Russia knew this and hence have exposed them as Putin knew US wouldn't attack Russia directly and especially after the way they pulled out of Afghanistan and he was better prepared to tackle sanctions after annexing Crimea in 2014. There is a reason why he has decided to attack Ukraine now and the world is waiting for the bigger picture to be revealed.

Ukraine was standing firm on its demand/wish to join NATO because it believed it had the backing of the West and so did the world in general. But the Russian's knew better and hence, Germany, Japan and many other countries are now running to increase their defense spending at the US protection umbrella was just imaginary in nature. Even Ukraine is now saying it doesn't want to join NATO. So you really think Ukraine thought there would be a different outcome when they expressed their desire to join NATO if they didn't believe they had the backing of powerful western nation to take on Russia if it comes to a standoff. This is where experience comes in handy and Zelensky's political inexperience is what lead to him getting played by the West especially against a country like Russia.

Even NATO members don't feel the more powerful countries US included will come to their defense if required. And the UK is taking advantage of this and are now trying to break the EU post their own exit to suit their own benefits.

Countries need to choose their sides wisely as it looks like 2022 will be remembered in history when the East started rising and West started sinking.

[GutsyGibbon]

Originally Posted by SnS_12

So you really think Ukraine thought there would be a different outcome when they expressed their desire to join NATO if they didn't believe they had the backing of powerful western nation to take on Russia if it comes to a standoff. This is where experience comes in handy and Zelensky's political inexperience is what lead to him getting played by the West especially against a country like Russia.

Even back in early 2000s, President Leonid Kuchma and Yukachenko were keenly interested in Ukraine joining NATO. The Yanukovych presidency could have damaged the prospects a little, but it was always on the minds of the people in western Ukraine. Zelensky only made what's on his voters minds, his agenda - thats how capitalistic democracy works. Ukraine has always feared for its existence, as more and more of the country leaned west. Ukraine was the first post soviet country to send troops to Iraq to support NATO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

PS: I am not an expert in any of this, but I have come to realize there are a lot of made up stories with Zelensky being an ex-comedian.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by SnS_12

Countries need to choose their sides wisely as it looks like 2022 will be remembered in history when the East started rising and West started sinking.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment of the East finally taking over from the west after 3 centuries of dominance, I am not sure if 2022 is the year for that and you will see why for the following reasons:

1) Russia isn't technically 'East' per se and while I've cautiously followed your (rather selective) arguments from your earlier posts that Russia is somehow at the top of the game here, I'm sorry but they just aren't.

2) Since 2014, the Russian economy has been constantly shrinking and is now smaller than the economy of Texas and Canada while being only slightly larger than the economy of Spain.

3) On top of this, Russia is facing the double whammy of a demographic collapse due to an ageing population while at the same time facing a rapid unprecedented brain drain (while they actually need positive immigration to keep up their population) which has actually increased since the war started.

4) Their manufacturing sector which was growing rapidly in the 2000s has collapsed in the 2010s with a heavy focus on commodities like gas and crude oil which while they can hold as a bargaining chip now won't be of much help when countries finally diversify. This is a very unhealthy economy. Have doubts? Ask Saudi Arabia.

5) Russia probably won't collapse and will doodle along skirting sanctions with import substitution, a bit like what Iran is doing but this isn't ideal! You are cut off from the global economy in what is a very globalized world.

6) As I had argued in an earlier post, while the west did make a fatal error in weaponing neutral financial systems like the SWIFT, an alternate Russian/Chinese run system isn't the solution. The Chinese were ready to use the river water flowing into India as a bargaining chip, you think they won't weaponise a financial system built by them? As much as we criticise the west, the urge to weaponise such systems will be much higher in authoritarian countries like China and Russia without independent central banks.

To conclude, what I see now is the final blow for Russia in its hope to be a superpower again reminiscent to the Soviet Union. At best, Putin's regime can survive by suppressing critics akin to what Iran is doing but that's about it.

Offcourse, since you said 'East' which Russian technically isn't part of (unless you meant the European Eastern Orthodoxy vs Western Catholicism/Protestantism split), let's explore the other options:

1) China - It's strange how till 2 months ago, we thought Xi would be the one to blow the world up but Putin somehow took his spot. Nevertheless, Xi is probably just as dangerous for the global system and with a slowing economy and a demographic challenge, China will almost certainly turn more hostile to the world, especially its neighbors but not as rapidly as Russia since Xi's power isn't as absolute as Putin with the CCP having some reins on him. Despite the speed at which China grew, their GDP per capita is still just around $12,000 as compared to $60,000 for the US which is still a long way to go. On top of that, we have China's debt bubble! Just China's high speed railway operator holds a debt of $900 billion and then there are the real estate bubbles. If any of these burst, it would be very hard for China to recover given that the Chinese people support the oppressive CCP system only because they are promised endless growth! You take that away and people are gonna ask questions whether you like it or not.

2) India - No matter what we try, our GDP growth rate hasn't gone above 9% in the past 6-7 years and I doubt if it ever will again. Neo-liberal reforms are welcome but we aren't seeing the kind of 10-12% rapid growth that took China to their current stage which in itself is still just 1/6th that of the US in terms of GDP per capita. India's current GDP per capita is less than Bangladesh, Nigeria, Kenya, Bolivia to name a few. How can India then become a superpower when it is still superpoor? Currently, most predictions indicate that India will touch $6 trillion by 2030 which is about double today's size and less than half that of China's CURRENT economy. At this rate, when are we catching up with China, let alone the west? Keep in mind that our demographic dividend will only last till the 2040s after which rapid economic growth will be very difficult.

3) ASEAN - the only country that is showing consistent growth is Vietnam but they face many of the same challenges as China and their system mirrors China but less rigid. So, if China goes into turmoil, I doubt if Vietnam can carry forward with the current system as well.

4) Japan/South Korea - These country are pretty much followers of the western bloc.

Don't get me wrong mate, I would love for the East to rise again but reality isn't based on hopes. The downfall of the west has been prophesized since the Vietnam war, after 9/11 and then after the Afghan exit last year but you have to keep in mind that the US fought wars in the Middle East at the other end of the globe (for them) where they lost less troops over 2 decades than Russia lost in 3 weeks while invading a neighboring country with flat tank friendly terrain (even taking Russia's own fatality tally which was around 500, 10 days back). Humans are biased and its easy to have a selective bias where you cherry-pick instances where the west is apparently 'losing' and those are great examples that you gave in your earlier posts but all they show is that the west are facing some issues as they did during previous crises as well, including the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Yom Kippur war to name a few but none of these issues show that they are in decline. The only loser here apart from Ukraine is Russia itself.

[Sran]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

This opens on my chrome. Perhaps, try cleaning your cache?

Did that obviously, ran ccleaner. Used both Laptop, used 3 ip addresses. It will play on chrome app on mobile but not on my laptop. I would not have made any unfounded accusation on this reputed forum.

Originally Posted by Poitive

Thanks for recommending this, mate. The part I've sewn till now appears impressive and relevant.

Incidentally, to send the link to a friend, I searched for it and found that it is available on YouTube as well. Being age-restricted, it needs a sign-in.

https://m.Youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNGvaDUs

It may have been restored because from 2nd of March it wasn't to be found on youtube that is why it was uploaded on rumble. Maybe some backlash forced google to green light it again.

Legendary Elon Musk has challenged Putin in Hand to Hand combat for Ukraine as the prize.

Zelensky is hell bent on "groznification" of Ukraine. In a bid to show Russia and Putin in bad light and to empty their economic reserve NATO will make sure that Ukraine is done and dusted by continuously supplying them muscle support under the garb of foreign legion.

Meanwhile, Russian gas will continue to flow to Europe through Ukraine as long as the operators of Ukraine’s gas networks are able to function, the head of Ukraine's state energy firm Naftogaz told Reuters on Monday. So EU and US will pressure India to not buy from Russia but will happily use Petro/Gas products from Russia for their use so that their economy and their citizens do not suffer.

Bermuda is suspending certification of Russian planes licensed in the British overseas territory due to sanctions on Moscow. The move could have critical effects including the grounding of a significant portion of the Russian fleet, more than 700 of which are believed to be licensed in Bermuda. It is basically like a certificate revocation which means that Russians planes have no fitness certificate so they won't be able to fly.

Lloyds register and DNV, the two biggest have cancelled all class certificates for Russian owned ships. It makes Russian ships uninsurable world wide. Without this classification and insurance they will be unable to come at most territorial waters as many ports will demand proof of insurance and current classification certificate.

[dragracer567]

Hard to understand why Russia chose to go into a military conflict when it can’t even feed its troops properly.


Also, an interesting article that shows how our armed forces are dependent on Ukraine as well for military equipment, though not as much as on Russia or the west.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by SnS_12

When it comes to the US its president is one of the most feared in political circles among all nations and hence, just the threat of sanctions was enough to keep a country in check.
---
So you really think Ukraine thought there would be a different outcome when they expressed their desire to join NATO if they didn't believe they had the backing of powerful western nation to take on Russia if it comes to a standoff.

It appears I was not able to communicate my point of view well enough.

It was really not about what Ukraine may or may not expect and other things in the post. It was a limited point about how it may not be such a great idea to address the issue as being about spine/bravado.

Further to what I have already said in the quoted post:

A couple of times on the thread, have said that we can't judge how well or poorly Russia might be doing, as we don't know what their goals are (we can roughly guess, but it is only a guess), and we do not know what their battle and other plans are to achieve those. Similarly, we do not know the goals, strategy and plans which the US might have.

At least in my world-view, simplistically put: wars are not about showing spine, but about achieving goals, in whatever manner they are achieved (whether with or without boots on the ground, whether or not by showing bravado - war, to me, as a broader meaning).

Also, let us not prejudge the effectiveness of the power structure of the US. This structure took centre-stage during WW2 and quite displaced the empire where the sun never set as the leading power in the world, and has maintained and enhanced it's position ever since. Won the Cold War without it getting hot with the Soviet Union, and so on. Despite what seems like a relatively weak president, I would not dismiss them with ease; at all. The power structure is way bigger than just just the president.

PS: Not sure this narrow topic deserves any further discussion and space.

Edit: About Zelensky, I shared my contemplations in fair detail in a recent post here.
~~~~

Originally Posted by Sran

Maybe some backlash forced google to green light it again.

Could well have been the case. Didn't mean to question you, just in case it came out that way. Only meant to update the thread of the finding and the YouTube link

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Hard to understand why Russia chose to go into a military conflict when it can’t even feed its troops properly.

Given that this media article is coming from a prominent western media outlet, I would not give it much credibility. The truth if at all, will be known in terms of the actual outcome of these events.

[Nissan1180]

Supply chain problems may start affecting inflation in the coming months. Russia is an important producer of fertiliser and Ukraine grows significant amount of food grains. Supply of these commodities has been disrupted by the conflict.

It is so tragic that just as the world was coming out of the covid crisis, another shock will have to be overcome.

[SnS_12]

Originally Posted by GutsyGibbon

Even back in early 2000s, President Leonid Kuchma and Yukachenko were keenly interested in Ukraine joining NATO. The Yanukovych presidency could have damaged the prospects a little, but it was always on the minds of the people in western Ukraine. Zelensky only made what's on his voters minds, his agenda

If you dig in deeper on this topic then you will learn that the citizens of Ukraine were never keen on becoming a part of NATO and the work to include Ukraine as a part of NATO was initiated in the early 90’s post the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin’s relation with US started going downhill when the NATO started its expansion in the early 2000 and when Bush pushed to include Georgia and Ukraine in 2008, which led to Russia invading Georgia to stop it and that is when the citizens were in a favour to join NATO to avoid the same for Ukraine and by 2014 Crimea was annexed.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

As much as I appreciate the sentiment of the East finally taking over from the west after 3 centuries of dominance, I am not sure if 2022 is the year for that and you will see why for the following reasons:

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Humans are biased and its easy to have a selective bias where you cherry-pick instances where the west is apparently 'losing' and those are great examples that you gave in your earlier posts but all they show is that the west are facing some issues as they did during previous crises as wel

I am a numbers man and hence my first post on this thread is backed by data available on the web to support the learning and my understanding of this whole situation and why Russia decided to attack Ukraine only now and waited for so many years after annexing Crimea. It was not as if Zelensky was going to sign the papers to join NATO the very next day. So my biased opinion about Russia is based on the reading I have done and keeps getting stronger when I see how is US reacting to this.

You really have to understand what Russia brings on the table to realise Sanctions will not deter them if that is not already evident by now.

Russia is a commodity giant and by commodity I don’t mean only Oil and Gas. The Apple’s of US will have shut their stores in Russia but will have to comeback to them for the minerals they require to make expensive/exclusive phones. Look at the price of wheat or shortage in semiconductor/chips and you will understand why Ukraine and Russia is so important to the world. Hence, what sanctions did to Libya, Iran etc will do more harm to the world then to Russia. Also, Russia knew sanctions will come and were better prepared and this despite the fact that Iran with its sanctions is still up and running.

Then you see what Russia is doing compared to the West’s actions. Russia is getting Oil rich countries on its side because without Energy (Oil,Gas,Coal) no one can survive as its the core to everything be it food to transportation.

And then look at how US has been responding. Their actions are confused and desperate from visiting countries like Venezuela whom they themselves have sanctioned to request for more oil to approaching both Iran and Saudi at the same time and been shown the door. They are just not able to balance the situation and Americas only real weapon against Russia was sanctions threat and that has clearly not worked and pointing actual weapons at Russia will mean even they won’t survive. When the world media is selling the story that Ukraine is fighting back and hence Russia after over two weeks has still not achieved their goal then why is it that Ukraine has not fired a single missile towards Russia yet for invading its country is it because they don’t have the capability or is it something else?

Lastly Russia has timed this perfectly because of what the financial condition of US is currently. The Fed is fighting inflation which is as high as it was in the 80’s and their plan to attack a 8% inflation is by a increase of interest rates by 25 basis points. Even if they do the unthinkable and increase the interest rate by 2% by next month will not be enough. Interest rates will have to be near the inflation rate if not more to make some actual impact or else it will just keep going up. And with Oil prices where they are it is just to accelerate further upwards.

US is on a weak ground here and the world is loosing confidence on them so imagine what would happen if NATO starts breaking up if its not already or if Russia with its new friends decide to not sell oil in US$ anymore. What will be the impact of that on US compared to what Russia is currently facing.

Every empire has its upward and downward cycle. It was the British till WWII and then the American. Who has more to loose in this battle US or Russia and who has more to gain. As per the West Russia has lost everything and that is what makes it more dangerous as they have nothing more to lose and hence more difficult to stop as well.

[dailydriver]

An immediate after-effect of the Russo-Ukranian war got visible to me yesterday.

My litre pack of refined sunflower oil (brand agnostic) costs me two hundred bucks - just a 33% increase over the last time I purchased it at my grocer. And a kilogram of loose wheat is retailing at thirty eight rupees - up from thirty three just a week ago.

All the furore over the ills that this war has wrought upon the direct participants, and the collateral destruction it has caused in terms of men, material and mindsets would prove to be minor irritants to an Indian man on the streets desperately looking for the source of his next meal and realising that his BPL (below poverty line) wages will fail to procure the ingredients needed to keep off the rats running around in his and his family members' stomach.

The sooner this war ends the better.

But can it end soon?

Only two leaders - both on the quest for greatness - can answer this.