All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

Again, propaganda. Not "truth".

The changes on the maps, over time, are the truth.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I simply responded that his speech perverted history; propaganda...you went off on this idea "you can't expunge him from history"...of course not, it's a dumb statement.

I disagree. As far as Russian history goes, I think Putin's speech is accurate & resonates with the Russian people.

I don't agree with him that it justifies war with Ukraine to restore Russia's former borders.

I just did a google map sat look at Crimea. I counted over 50 fighter aircraft sitting in the open on ramps at 2 air fields with multiple aircraft alert bunkered shelters.

It will be tough to take Crimea.

Exactly; you've bought into his propaganda, his perversion of history.

As I wrote earlier, taking partial truth of history, ignoring the bulk of truth of history, in order to misinform for a desired effect, false conclusions, is propaganda.

That it "resonates" is only to say that the people have been mis-informed for even generations of propaganda. An authoritarian fascist like Putin knows what he is doing when he does so..truth doesn't matter, just the desired effect.

It does not make it "accurate".

And you've bought it. What I don't get is why.

And yes, it will be tough to take Crimea.
It's going to be tough to take back the rest of the territories annexed illegally by Russia as well.

My views on Russian history are not propaganda. I formed them before Putin came to power, when the USSR came apart after the Cold War & we (the West) exploited the situation to contain Russia & lop off parts of what had been historically Russian territory. Just look at a series of maps, ponder the advantages that accrued to us (the West) & the losses that Russia suffered. Now you're surprised that Putin is able to revive Russian nationalism & stoke their sense of grievance.

You hate America. You want the government to give up territory to France, Mexico and England.

[old salt]

You hate America. You want the government to give up territory to France, Mexico and England.

None of the Europeans were natives. We'd need a refund from the French.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You hate America. You want the government to give up territory to France, Mexico and England.

None of the Europeans were natives. We'd need a refund from the French.

[Kismet]

Again, propaganda. Not "truth".

The changes on the maps, over time, are the truth.

Repeating your biased and inaccurate history of Ukraine and Russia doesn't validate much of anything let alone your erroneous contentions.

[old salt]

On CSPAN this morning, George Beebe said only 4000 Wagner fighters followed Prigozhin out of Ukraine.

[Typical Lax Dad]

On CSPAN this morning, George Beebe said only 4000 Wagner fighters followed Prigozhin out of Ukraine.

Of course he was say “only”…..

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/ ... n-ukraine/

This is what I figured…..so I confirmed my hunch.

[MDlaxfan76]

Again, propaganda. Not "truth".

The changes on the maps, over time, are the truth.

Yes they are...as long as fully understood.
Pretending that it's all Russia, that current Russia therefore has a right to all territories in which it had prior dominated, nope.

As I said, a kernel of truth, twisted, is how propaganda works. But that's NOT truth.

And a speech which does so should not be praised.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Great speech.

[old salt]

More on Russian history from today in Defense One's D Brief :

Jack Watling of the London-based Royal United Services Institute ... "It is apt that Putin referenced the events of 1917 in his denunciation of Wagner's actions. It is important to reflect on the extent to which the deterioration of the Russian Army in 1917 saw numerous mutinies, negotiations and fragmentation within the Russian command. The collapse in 1917 started at the front and it took months to develop."

If Ukraine can continue to advance and take back occupied territory, Watling argues, Russian troops may be further demoralized, which could further rot the entire military structure over the coming months.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/p ... s-its-wake

[old salt]

More on Russian history. In his speech, Putin made reference to Novorossiya.

https://academic.oup.com/book/40852/cha ... m=fulltext

The Novorossiya Project
Gerard Toal
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190253301.003.0013
Pages 237–273
Published: March 2017

Abstract
In breaking apart a sovereign territorial state, it is helpful, if not always necessary, to have an alternative geopolitical imaginary at the ready and for this ersatz replacement to have some degree of local credibility and support. When Putin decided to annex Crimea, the move was intuitively presented as a historic Russian territory rejoining the motherland and, further, as the correction of an arbitrary and capricious historical wrong. The demographics of Crimea were such that this storyline resonated with most but not all Crimeans. But when it came to the rest of Ukraine, the Putin administration faced a dilemma. Ukraine’s modern history was intimately entangled with that of Russia. Tsarist and Russian Orthodox Christian discourse rendered it the homeland of a common Rus(s)ian people, its capital Kyiv as the mother of all Russian cities, and its land as a Little Russia populated by little Russians. The Bolsheviks recognized Ukrainians as a distinctive nation, constituting it as a fraternal Slavic nation alongside Russians. The Great Patriotic War bound the countries together, first in trial and suffering, and then in redemption and victory. Putin evoked these very discourses—“we are one people, Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other”—in his speech recommending annexation of Crimea. Holding that Ukrainians and Russians are one people while, at the same time, seizing territory from Ukraine required a hyperbolic fascist-threat storyline to make sense. According to this scenario, anti-Semitic nationalists from western regions not part of the Russian Empire were Nazi collaborators during the Great Patriotic War. Now, in the seventieth year of Ukraine’s liberation from Nazi rule, these forces were back on the streets and through violent protests on the Maidan managed to oust a legitimate government and seize power in a military coup. Ukraine, as a consequence, was in territorial crisis as ordinary ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people, concentrated particularly in the southeast, sought protection from the fascist junta now ensconced in Kyiv. In these circumstances, it was understandable that former tsarist and Soviet identities in regions historically close to Russia resurfaced.

[Typical Lax Dad]

More on Russian history from today in Defense One's D Brief :

Jack Watling of the London-based Royal United Services Institute ... "It is apt that Putin referenced the events of 1917 in his denunciation of Wagner's actions. It is important to reflect on the extent to which the deterioration of the Russian Army in 1917 saw numerous mutinies, negotiations and fragmentation within the Russian command. The collapse in 1917 started at the front and it took months to develop."

If Ukraine can continue to advance and take back occupied territory, Watling argues, Russian troops may be further demoralized, which could further rot the entire military structure over the coming months.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/p ... s-its-wake

So Putin didn’t say anything that wasn’t expected…..thanks.

[youthathletics]

Anyone hear any rumblings about more US troops heading towards Ukraine?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Anyone hear any rumblings about more US troops heading towards Ukraine?

Someone on the internet mentioned it.

[youthathletics]

Anyone hear any rumblings about more US troops heading towards Ukraine?

Someone on the internet mentioned it.

His name is Mike Hawk.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Anyone hear any rumblings about more US troops heading towards Ukraine?

Someone on the internet mentioned it.

His name is Mike Hawk.

Thanks….the stumpy midget

[old salt]

Amid much fanfare, Germany has committed to increase their contribution to NATO's joint defense force on the E flank from the current 20 to 4000, to be based in Lithuania ...provided Lithuania constructs facilities to base them, & bears the costs of their presence, ...estimated to take place in... 2026. ...so much for the Rapid Response Force.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-statio ... a-66031051

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ge ... 023-06-26/

[MDlaxfan76]

Amid much fanfare, Germany has committed to increase their contribution to NATO's joint defense force on the E flank from the current 20 to 4000, to be based in Lithuania ...provided Lithuania constructs facilities to base them, & bears the costs of their presence, ...estimated to take place in... 2026. ...so much for the Rapid Response Force.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-statio ... a-66031051

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ge ... 023-06-26/

They have 1,000 not 20 based in Lithuania according to your first article. But not where the base to be built is, there it's 20.

They lead NATO's battlegroup in Lithuania. 300 tanks and 1,000 other German combat forces doing maneuver training in Lithuania, 3rd such since 2022? Or ever?

Are you simply saying that NATO should have much larger forces in the Baltics and Poland? Or Germany specifically?

That may be correct.

[old salt]

Amid much fanfare, Germany has committed to increase their contribution to NATO's joint defense force on the E flank from the current 20 to 4000, to be based in Lithuania ...provided Lithuania constructs facilities to base them, & bears the costs of their presence, ...estimated to take place in... 2026. ...so much for the Rapid Response Force.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-statio ... a-66031051

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ge ... 023-06-26/

They have 1,000 not 20 based in Lithuania according to your first article. But not where the base to be built is, there it's 20.

They lead NATO's battlegroup in Lithuania. 300 tanks and 1,000 other German combat forces doing maneuver training in Lithuania, 3rd such since 2022? Or ever?

Are you simply saying that NATO should have much larger forces in the Baltics and Poland? Or Germany specifically?

That may be correct.

imo -- NATO should decide the forward force level needed. I think all the EU members, UK & Canada should contribute combat troops. but Germany most of all. I think it should be overwhelmingly non-US force with only enough US presence to enable interoperability & US reinforcement if/when necessary.

The Germans only have 20 permanently stationed in Lithuania. The rest of the 1000 rotate in & out. The majority of the brigade remains in Germany.
They have a larger number there now for this show of force exercise. They will return to Germany after the exercise & NATO summit there.
It's a publicity stunt, now 9 years since Russia's first incursion into Ukraine & NATO began bolstering the E flank. How many US forces have rotated in & out since then on lengthy deployments ?

Here's the composition of the NATO battle group currently in Lithuania :
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
Host nation: Lithuania
Framework nation: Germany
Contributing nations: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... 20reported.

Germany’s military, the Bundeswehr, has already been present in Lithuania, which borders Russia and Belarus, for six years with several hundred soldiers. There, Germany leads a NATO battlegroup with currently about 1,600 soldiers, including about 780 from the Bundeswehr, dpa reported. It was not immediately clear what would happen to this unit when the new German brigade is stationed in Lithuania.

[MDlaxfan76]

Amid much fanfare, Germany has committed to increase their contribution to NATO's joint defense force on the E flank from the current 20 to 4000, to be based in Lithuania ...provided Lithuania constructs facilities to base them, & bears the costs of their presence, ...estimated to take place in... 2026. ...so much for the Rapid Response Force.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-statio ... a-66031051

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ge ... 023-06-26/

They have 1,000 not 20 based in Lithuania according to your first article. But not where the base to be built is, there it's 20.

They lead NATO's battlegroup in Lithuania. 300 tanks and 1,000 other German combat forces doing maneuver training in Lithuania, 3rd such since 2022? Or ever?

Are you simply saying that NATO should have much larger forces in the Baltics and Poland? Or Germany specifically?

That may be correct.

imo -- NATO should decide the forward force level needed. I think all the EU members, UK & Canada should contribute combat troops. but Germany most of all. I think it should be overwhelmingly non-US force with only enough US presence to enable interoperability & US reinforcement if/when necessary.

The Germans only have 20 permanently stationed in Lithuania. The rest of the 1000 rotate in & out. The majority of the brigade remains in Germany.
They have a larger number there now for this show of force exercise. They will return to Germany after the exercise & NATO summit there.
It's a publicity stunt, now 9 years since Russia's first incursion into Ukraine & NATO began bolstering the E flank. How many US forces have rotated in & out since then on lengthy deployments ?

Here's the composition of the NATO battle group currently in Lithuania :
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
Host nation: Lithuania
Framework nation: Germany
Contributing nations: Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... 20reported.

Germany’s military, the Bundeswehr, has already been present in Lithuania, which borders Russia and Belarus, for six years with several hundred soldiers. There, Germany leads a NATO battlegroup with currently about 1,600 soldiers, including about 780 from the Bundeswehr, dpa reported. It was not immediately clear what would happen to this unit when the new German brigade is stationed in Lithuania.

So, 1,000 at any given time...you want them to bring their families, live there for years?
Yup, that's why Lithuania would need to build such infrastructure.

You ask, "How many US forces have rotated in & out since then on lengthy deployments ?"...I have no idea, didn't see that in your links, though I may have missed it...do you know? How many are "permanently based" in Lithuania? I'm guessing darn few, but this ain't my field of knowledge...feel free to share info.

As to your preference, I have no argument with the bulk of such NATO forces being non-US, but as I've said numerous times, we like to take the lead in force and weapon deployments. Gives us greater say. And, on balance, that's been a very good thing for the US.

But I have no objection with wanting our European allies to lead in forward deployment in the Baltics...a lot closer to home with their families than for American soldiers.

And from what you posted, sounds like the Germans are indeed taking the lead in this.