How Long Will russia Suffer for pootins Invasion of Ukraine 💸💸💸💸💸

lindenengineering

Well-known member
Contrary to what has been wrote, I think Pres Putin will grind on the conflict by opening new fronts, surprise attacks on old areas of conflict near to Belarus' border to confound his enemy, stretching their military resources and inflict heavy monetary costs on NATO forces who support Ukraine.
Boiled down its a question of resolve and Russian chauvinism.
Will the West & Nato stay the course or wither under the costs involved.
Instead of months I foresee this conflict stretching out into years.
Dennis
 

Rocksnsalt

There Can Be Only ONE
.
Contrary to what has been wrote, I think Pres Putin will grind on the conflict by opening new fronts, surprise attacks on old areas of conflict near to Belarus' border to confound his enemy, stretching their military resources and inflict heavy monetary costs on NATO forces who support Ukraine.
Boiled down its a question of resolve and Russian chauvinism.
Will the West & Nato stay the course or wither under the costs involved.
Instead of months I foresee this conflict stretching out into years.
Dennis
Certainly a possibility.
Do you think that’ll still be the case when the russian people see and realize the truth… and just how much they’ve been lied to and kept in the dark? And how many russian sons have gone “missing?”
Protests and Revolts will follow. People will rise up, as will of course police brutality.

In the meantime pootin is losing cannon fodder, weapons, and equipment far faster than any conflict his military of murderers has fought since WWII. All while the russian economy is circling the drain…
And pootin will have problems replacing weaponry as well as problematic logistics of supplying his forces of evil what they need to carry out his brutal and unnecessary conquest. Especially if he tries to move them to new fronts regularly.
 

Mike DZ

2016 View 24V (2015 3500)
What system brought Putin to power? Can you elaborate a bit...
An internet forum is not a good place to try to explain large and complex socio-political actions. It would take a book (at least) to do an adequate job in explaining Putin's rise to the top of the current gov't. And plenty of books have been written - https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...over-ukraine/B98AC79A5B3F1816107BFFEEF02AB6FF
Not that I agree specifically with any of the books, but they provide some ways to think about it.

My own impression, in a thumbnail, Post WWII gov't has been autocratic, security services in general have been ascendent in that gov't, kleptocracy has been on the rise, the two trends (autocracy and kleptocracy) have combined and reinforced. See selectorate theory to understand what happens next. Milosevic was a mini-example of selectorate theory at work.
 

Mike DZ

2016 View 24V (2015 3500)
Do you think that’ll still be the case when the russian people see and realize the truth… and just how much they’ve been lied to and kept in the dark? And how many russian sons have gone “missing?”
Actually, a look back through time tells us that populations mostly rally around the leader that is "defending the nation" from "outside aggressors". This is particularly true with autocratic gov'ts. Also, using the term "Nazi" is a hot button baked into the national belief structure. The losses in manpower are minuscule compared to WWII losses - again, baked into the national belief structure. Yes, they are personal tragedies for each family, but the ability to endure unimaginable loss is has been demonstrated multiple times by the Russian people.

The question is, will these historic trends hold up in modern times? Will the ability of the Russia people to communicate more rapidly (modern telecoms) break the traditional mold of endurance? Or will these tools be used to extend the patterns of control and focus on nationalism. I would bet on the later.
 

Dima74

Independent & Self Reliant - From Chattanooga TN
An internet forum is not a good place to try to explain large and complex socio-political actions. It would take a book (at least) to do an adequate job in explaining Putin's rise to the top of the current gov't. And plenty of books have been written - https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...over-ukraine/B98AC79A5B3F1816107BFFEEF02AB6FF
Not that I agree specifically with any of the books, but they provide some ways to think about it.

My own impression, in a thumbnail, Post WWII gov't has been autocratic, security services in general have been ascendent in that gov't, kleptocracy has been on the rise, the two trends (autocracy and kleptocracy) have combined and reinforced. See selectorate theory to understand what happens next. Milosevic was a mini-example of selectorate theory at work.
Putin's rise to power is not a result of a political system, but Yeltsin's deep personal despair in what he did to the Soviet Union and later Russian Federation. Yeltsin's Russia was the wild west of USA.

I think you are confusing how Putin came to power with how Putin stays in power. Those 2 are not the same thing...
 

lindenengineering

Well-known member
Clearly this war was supposed to be a quick take over of Ukraine from the Russian perspective , Slav versus Slav.
This however has changed significantly with stiff Ukrainian resistance especially since the American administration under Biden has slowly slipped off "the bleachers" as an observer and become an active supplier of war materiale to Ukraine bolstering its defensive position..

Now its clear NATO is fighting quasi 3rd party proxy war with Russia & Pres Putin .
Yes breaking the mold of endurance is becoming increasingly clear with either side hell bent on grinding down either opposing belligerent parties until cost to prosecute a war become untenable !
I suppose the question remains will Ukraine take the fight across the border into Russia in retaliation?

This if course is not new & in fact the cost to prosecute or continue a campaign became a major cost factor in the English Colonists' War of independence from England, in spite of what you might read in American history books .

The other often not discussed is religion. This can be a powerful motivator of the population.
The Russian orthodox Church and its clerics are clearly behind Putin, and his stated military policy of ridding the area of what he calls Nazi, but equally the Russian Church primacy has already stated the war is to regain to Russia what was lost after the Soviets dissolved their union.
This message appeals enormously to those of the Russian population who support Putin's regime .

As for kleptocracies, let's not forget that England was a kleptocracy of sorts when Queen Elizabeth 1st set out with some forceful aggression in the 16th century policy to create the British Empire, stealing gold & silver and territories from the other opposing grand kleptocracy called Spain & its territories .
As a side bar the development of the English Democracy model so copied by many nations and certainly continued by the North American states is that which can be found in a book called "The Power of Place" .
Simply put, due to geographical constants Russia historically has always had a different perspective on its place on the map and the world, due to topographical insecurity unlike Britain and the NA continent .
Again the British Empire policy towards Russia in the 19th century resulted in the Crimean War and disastrous invasion/occupation of Afghanistan on no fewer than three occasions, called the Great Game of Empires .
Clearly a great deal of blood and treasure is being expended with this conflict, and the outcome really isn't clear a this time .
Dennis
 
Last edited:

Rocksnsalt

There Can Be Only ONE
Actually, a look back through time tells us that populations mostly rally around the leader that is "defending the nation" from "outside aggressors". This is particularly true with autocratic gov'ts. Also, using the term "Nazi" is a hot button baked into the national belief structure. The losses in manpower are minuscule compared to WWII losses - again, baked into the national belief structure. Yes, they are personal tragedies for each family, but the ability to endure unimaginable loss is has been demonstrated multiple times by the Russian people.

The question is, will these historic trends hold up in modern times? Will the ability of the Russia people to communicate more rapidly (modern telecoms) break the traditional mold of endurance? Or will these tools be used to extend the patterns of control and focus on nationalism. I would bet on the later.
Fair enough. Time will tell…
 

Mike DZ

2016 View 24V (2015 3500)
Clearly this war was supposed to be a quick take over of Ukraine from the Russian perspective , Slav versus Slav.
This however has changed significantly with stiff Ukrainian resistance especially since the American administration under Biden has slowly slipped off "the bleachers" as an observer and become an active supplier of war materiale to Ukraine bolstering its defensive position..
Agree

Now its clear NATO is fighting quasi 3rd party proxy war with Russia & Pres Putin .
Disagree. Many NATO nations are supporting Ukraine, but not all. Note Turkey's position. NATO works on consensus - and I mean the procedures are actually built on consensus = everyone has a veto. And NATO's high command and command and control structure is not involved as counties like Turkey would publish that quickly.

This if course is not new & in fact the cost to prosecute or continue a campaign became a major cost factor in the English Colonists' War of independence from England, in spite of what you might read in American history books .

The other often not discussed is religion. This can be a powerful motivator of the population.
The Russian orthodox Church and its clerics are clearly behind Putin, and his stated military policy of ridding the area of what he calls Nazi, but equally the Russian Church primacy has already stated the war is to regain to Russia what was lost after the Soviets dissolved their union.
This message appeals enormously to those of the Russian population who support Putin's regime .
Agree

As for kleptocracies, let's not forget that England was a kleptocracy of sorts when Queen Elizabeth 1st set out with some forceful aggression in the 16th century policy to create the British Empire, stealing gold & silver and territories from the other opposing grand kleptocracy called Spain & its territories .
Agree that colonial empires rip off their colonies. But not sure that I would call that kleptocracy - my perspective of that term focuses on individuals that are doing the ripping off and their ability then to rise in the system and manipulate it for their benefit.

"The Power of Place" .
Simply put, due to geographical constants Russia historically has always had a different perspective on its place on the map and the world, due to topographical insecurity unlike Britain and the NA continent .
Agree. Geopolitics can't explain lots of what's happening in international relations, but it does provide some very useful insights in specific cases.
 

lindenengineering

Well-known member
Just a commentary post i saw today ref the Russian Orthodox Church:-

"The Patriarch of Moscow "Kirill" is also ex KGB & one of Putin's Oligarch buddies. Hence he likes to be seen genuflecting in front of shrines & lighting incense candles - it's all a complete sham to hoodwink the ordinary Russian (who are generally very religious).
He is reputed to have $4 billion stashed away for a rainy day. That's a lot of collections - from peasants!"


Made me chuckle !
Dennis
 

OrioN

2008 2500 170" EXT
RE


Disagree. Many NATO nations are supporting Ukraine, but not all. Note Turkey's position. NATO works on consensus - and I mean the procedures are actually built on consensus = everyone has a veto. And NATO's high command and command and control structure is not involved as counties like Turkey would publish that quickly.

Imnsho Turkey should’ve never been admitted into NATO.
Complete different cultural ideals etc. than the rest of NATO Europe.
But perhaps admitting Turkey to NATO was more a function of limiting russian influence… and now we see how that worked out.
Methinks he needs to clarify if he means NATO as an organization or a group of NATO member countries.....
 

Rocksnsalt

There Can Be Only ONE
Disagree. Many NATO nations are supporting Ukraine, but not all. Note Turkey's position. NATO works on consensus - and I mean the procedures are actually built on consensus = everyone has a veto. And NATO's high command and command and control structure is not involved as counties like Turkey would publish that quickly.
Imnsho perhaps Turkey should’ve never been admitted into NATO. But maybe some sort of “B team” protection. Or something.
Some different cultural ideals etc. than the rest of NATO Europe. Yeah I’m sure some will squeal “diversity” etc. Whatever.
In turkeys defense yes they may have helped in the war on terror and or helping with the wounded Ukrainian fighters.
But perhaps admitting Turkey to NATO was more a function of limiting soviet russian expansion and/or influence… and now we see how that worked out.
 
Last edited:

ECU

Well-known member
We have had "Military Advisors" in Ukraine from the start of the military action.
I found this interesting about how the current administration does things:
So here's the REAL story:
Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to secretly retrieve US made Stinger Missiles that the State Dept had supplied to Ansar al Sharia in Libya WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission.
Sec State Hillary Clinton had brokered the Libya deal through Ambassador Stevens and a Private Arms Dealer named Marc Turi, but some of the shoulder fired Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan where they were used against our own military. On July 25th, 2012, a US Chinook helicopter was downed by one of them. Not destroyed only because the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile. The helicopter didn't explode, but it had to land and an ordnance team recovered the missile’s serial number which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles kept in Qatar by the CIA.
Obama and Hillary were in full panic mode, so Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to retrieve the rest of the Stinger Missiles. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the Stand Down Orders given to multiple rescue teams during the siege of the US Embassy.
It was the State Dept, NOT the CIA, that supplied the Stinger Missiles to our sworn enemies because Gen. Petraeus at CIA would not approve supplying the deadly missiles due to their potential use against commercial aircraft. So then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus when he refused to testify in support of Obama’s phony claim of a “spontaneous uprising caused by a YouTube video that insulted Muslims.”
Obama and Hillary committed TREASON!
THIS is what the investigation is all about, WHY she had a Private Server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and WHY Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of the YouTube video, even though everyone KNEW it was not.
Furthermore, the Taliban knew that the administration had aided and abetted the enemy WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission, so they began pressuring (blackmailing) the Obama Administration to release five Taliban generals being held at Guantanamo.
Bowe Bergdahl was just a useful pawn used to cover the release of the Taliban generals. Everyone knew Bergdahl was a traitor but Obama used Bergdahl’s exchange for the five Taliban generals to cover that Obama was being coerced by the Taliban about the unauthorized Stinger Missile deal.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised, as well and a Sec of State that is a serial liar, who perjured herself multiple times at the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft were called upon for help in Benghazi: because the administration knew that our enemies had Stinger Missiles, that if used to down those planes, would likely be traced back to the CIA cache in Qatar and then to the State Dept’s illegitimate arms deal in Libya.
 

Dima74

Independent & Self Reliant - From Chattanooga TN
We may have a different definition of political system. From my perspective there is always a political system in being even if it is clans and families that control resources and life opportunities.
Fair enough and I agree with your definition to a certain extent... Even though in many parts of the world religion is what controls resources and opportunities...
 

Mike DZ

2016 View 24V (2015 3500)
Imnsho perhaps Turkey should’ve never been admitted into NATO. But maybe some sort of “B team” protection. Or something.
Some different cultural ideals etc. than the rest of NATO Europe. Yeah I’m sure some will squeal “diversity” etc. Whatever.
In turkeys defense yes they may have helped in the war on terror and or helping with the wounded Ukrainian fighters.
But perhaps admitting Turkey to NATO was more a function of limiting soviet russian expansion and/or influence… and now we see how that worked out.
Please recall that Turkey almost fell behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union when at the end of WWII the Soviets had large numbers of troops around the then fairly neutral Turkey. The Soviets had been trying to pressure Turkey into giving up control of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus during and after the war and had made claims of territory on the northern edge of Turkey because of what they saw as a historic claim The US provided support diplomatic, economic and military to counteract the Soviet pressure. Including Turkey in NATO in 1952 was a way to contain Soviet expansion in that region. Turkey was only one of the European countries to benefit from similar attention, see also Italy and Greece. One of my professors said on a regular basis "NATO was designed to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down."
 

lindenengineering

Well-known member
Don't forget the Soviet control of Northern Iranian five provinces until well past WW2, having taken advantage of a treaty signed between Russia, the Kadjar Regime and Shah Reza the Great before 1914 & then the quasi unenforced presence after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
This latterly provided a convenient arms supply route to Soviet Russia from Bandar Abbas to Tabriz by rail to the Caucuses during WW2, but became a source of potential conflict with the Woodrow Wilson administration in 1946.
Dennis.
 

ECU

Well-known member
Even though in many parts of the world religion is what controls resources and opportunities...
Religion = Politics.
 

ECU

Well-known member
Not porn.
The pope used to choose kings.
 

Top Bottom