HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Hope you are right, he’s obviously a murdering maniac but despite the commentary about his shock and surprise I still think he knew what he was doing and what the reaction would be. He is a gangster after all.
The end?
- Thread starter borolad259
- Start date
Suggest you look up the word Islamist and change your wording.
I think his plan was to take Ukraine before the west could even react . So I don’t envisage this reaction is part of his plans
An Islamist according to the definition is someone who advocates Islamic fundamentalism . So no, I stand by what I said . I do actually believe they would be mental enough to use them
It’s why it’s imperative Iran never gets nukes
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
The Belfast comparison is invalid because Belfast had and retains an ethnically mixed population. The governing power did not ethnically cleanse it. It wasn’t, for much of the last century, fully even handed, but it wasn’t genocidal. The “winner” of this war will be.
The civilian populations of Eastern Ukraine, such as they remain at all, are not really ethnically mixed like they were and to the extent that they still are will not remain so. When the dust settles this will be 1946 Eastern Europe not 1922 North of Ireland. The losing minority will be gone.
BoroMart
Well-known member
It was valid as a throw away comment on populations that had factions that hated the rulers. It wasn’t meant to be a deep and complex comparison, the statement was that it would be nothing like Northern Ireland, it would be magnitudes worse, as a local conflict that we are all familiar with it served the purpose
Last edited:
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Politicians and their military leaders constantly make mistakes especially when it comes to invasion.
Examples
Argentine Generals in 1982 thought taking the Falklands and keeping them would be straight forward.
US and UK military and politicians thought the same about Iraq.
Ref Bolsheviks taking Ukraine in 1921 - it was pretty complicated I can't write it all here but Antony Beevors book Russian Civil War is a great and detailed read on what happened on what became the USSR between 1917 and 1921. For example Kiev was illegally occupied by the Imperial German Army in 1918 after the peace treaty was signed between the Bolsheviks and the Germans. The Germans stole a lot of the food, but on November 11th 1918 moved out of their own accord. Ukraine was split several way there were Bolsheviks Ukrianians (Reds), Tsarist Ukrianains (Whites) and Ukrianian Nationalists (Greens). Plus French and British supporting the Whites after WW1 finished. I have seen photos of the RAF on the Volga in 1919. The British policy was the kill off the Reds @ birth while they weak. War memorials in the is country tend to say 1914 to 1919, because of the British personel that died in Russia in 1919. The Russian Civil War lasted nearly 3 years.
Examples
Argentine Generals in 1982 thought taking the Falklands and keeping them would be straight forward.
US and UK military and politicians thought the same about Iraq.
Ref Bolsheviks taking Ukraine in 1921 - it was pretty complicated I can't write it all here but Antony Beevors book Russian Civil War is a great and detailed read on what happened on what became the USSR between 1917 and 1921. For example Kiev was illegally occupied by the Imperial German Army in 1918 after the peace treaty was signed between the Bolsheviks and the Germans. The Germans stole a lot of the food, but on November 11th 1918 moved out of their own accord. Ukraine was split several way there were Bolsheviks Ukrianians (Reds), Tsarist Ukrianains (Whites) and Ukrianian Nationalists (Greens). Plus French and British supporting the Whites after WW1 finished. I have seen photos of the RAF on the Volga in 1919. The British policy was the kill off the Reds @ birth while they weak. War memorials in the is country tend to say 1914 to 1919, because of the British personel that died in Russia in 1919. The Russian Civil War lasted nearly 3 years.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
It won’t be magnitudes worse though. In the medium to long term and as a governance issue. Because there’ll be none of the pussy footing that accompanied 1922. The losers will be gone. Dead or expelled. How much of a problem did the Czech government have dealing with Bohemian Germans in the fifties?
Both sides in this war are clear in their ethically pure future vision and if they’re coy about the genocidal implications of that you’d still have to be a half wit to miss it. That’s what you’re choosing between.
Both sides in this war are clear in their ethically pure future vision and if they’re coy about the genocidal implications of that you’d still have to be a half wit to miss it. That’s what you’re choosing between.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Nope, not having you throwing halfwit comments around. It's simply not necessary to behave so childishly in a thread where everyone has behaved so well. Off you pop.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Parts of Yugoslavia are probably a better comparison than Northern Ireland where many countries have Slav minorities who live uncomfortably in non Slav countries with the exception of Serbia which is a major Slav state. Around 1m people died in fighting and murders in the 1990s Balkans.
However Ireland is an example of a country that was rigidly split in 1922 to accommodate the different enhic types, particularly to accommodate the minority Unionists in pre 1922 Ireland. Without the split my guess is there would have been a blood bath in the 1920s.
However Ireland is an example of a country that was rigidly split in 1922 to accommodate the different enhic types, particularly to accommodate the minority Unionists in pre 1922 Ireland. Without the split my guess is there would have been a blood bath in the 1920s.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Yes, the balkans are a good comparison, but like I said N Ireland was a throw away comment about it would nothing like that, it would be far far worse.
Hmm. Interesting take. Here, one ethnic group didn't choose to be in this conflict.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
To answer the question there are no ethnic Germans in the Czech Republic - we are not supposed to talk about it.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Correct me if I’m wrong but Ukraine is a massive country to take just like that isn’t it? He must surely have known they would have some defences and armed forces in place?
I‘m not being argumentative and I don’t know much about the military but I’m just struggling to get my head around a Russian leader thinking he would invade Ukraine with tanks and a few missiles for good measure, that Russia’s combat soldiers would be welcomed with open arms, the Ukraine Army would just surrender, Zelensky would flee and it would all happen in a few days.
That is a plan and mindset I just cannot believe to be true.
He likes good news. The people around him fed him good news. He believed that it would be over quickly because he believed it would be a simple bloodless takeover. He believed this because This is what happened in 2014. He also believed that the West's perceeption of Soviet might would mean that they would keep out. As they did with Donbass and Crimea. He believed all this because he was told this. The grand plan was corridor to Odessas, then up to Kalingrad. He also had ambitions for Finland (insane.... only a loon would take those mad feckers on) and Sweden. Sweden had, at the time, closed down its main special forces base in the North (my locale .... I know a few of the instructors). Anyway, he got it wrong.
The worst the Ukrainians will do is tell any Russians who refuse to accept Ukraine is a separate country to **** off . It will also do the same to people who think Donbas belongs to Russia . Ukraine will want to uphold western values of anti genocide if it wants deeper links to the eu . Can’t say I blame them either .
Russia however will happily commit genocide on the Ukrainians . I mean it’s doing it now
If he took kyiv Ukraine would have fallen quickly . Usually the capital falling means the rest of the country swiftly follows
NZBoro1
Well-known member
Not in 1812 it didn't.
Mind you usually you a re right. But there are some capitals where you can take it but the country is so vast they can keep on going, Russia being one of these.
The Soviets had plans for this in 1941/2 as well and they were all ready to move east.
Mind you usually you a re right. But there are some capitals where you can take it but the country is so vast they can keep on going, Russia being one of these.
The Soviets had plans for this in 1941/2 as well and they were all ready to move east.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Wrong or not, none of it makes sense in my humble opinion, although I can see the argument that he thought the US would not dare get involved on Russia’s doorstep.
Finland and Sweden? Surely not, they weren’t even part of the Soviet Union.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Give me a single piece of credible evidence that Ukraine is planning to ethnically cleanse their territory if they win the war.
There is none.
The President of Ukraine is a native Russian speaker, a third of the population of pre-war Ukraine are, and around 15% identified as ethnically Russian.
You're clearly in the rabbit hole with Russian propaganda if you think that Ukraine will be commiting genocide against over 10 million people.