Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

Barry

Contributor
Messages
656
Reactions
1 1,682
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
Any DMZ would have to be in Russia's territory, not Ukraine's. DMZ in Ukraine's territory would still be as good as occupied, and we Turkish Cypriots know how UN peacekeepers treat victims of aggression in such circumstances.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,797
Reactions
98 9,198
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Any DMZ would have to be in Russia's territory, not Ukraine's. DMZ in Ukraine's territory would still be as good as occupied,

False.
 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,831
Reactions
14 2,806
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
no i get that, but what i'm trying to say is that giving the Russians land will not lead to peace, it will lead to more wars. If you want peace you have to crush their armies that are attacking you. So anyone who suggests the Russians can have land, are basically ok'ing another war. Its the opposite of peace, if you want peace you need Ukraine to reclaim all her land back.

If Ukraine reclaims all her land back, the Russians will not be any rush to launch another war. But if she gets 15% of the country, she will say why not do another war and take another 15/20%.

We dealt with the Russians throughout history, but in the recent history we have dealt with them in syria and libya, outside of direct fighting they shit over all agreements and always look to undermine and harm you, these people don't believe in peace, they only believe in power and domination. No agreement ever held with them, the only lines that are holding are where the armies are face to face.

Its for good reason that i find the Russian political class as degenerate as they come.

And lets not forget how the entire Russian state at the start of this war was boasting about how they were going to invade half of Europe. Then the threats of nuclear war over their evil invasion, these people need to punished and punished hard.
The real issue here is the breaks in training / equiping Ukrainians on / with all they need to push Russia out entirely. The majority of what the West has donated to this point has been defensive in nature. Only a small percentage of what has been donated is ideal for continuous, full scale offensives. We're approaching the point where air defense is going to be layered and capable enough to stop the majority of Russian missile attacks. Those attacks are starting to get costly, stress Russian stockpiles and above all else, they're becoming increasingly less effective.

Now, the West had to be serious about whether or not they want Ukraine to have the offensive tools to be able to make Russians pay. Quietly, Ukraine has been crushing Russian artillery of late in the south of the country, but we, collectively, have held back on providing them the continuous training on / supply of MBTs, IFVs, etc that they need to really cut through the Russians. We need to be providing 3x those supplies, while re-stocking our own assets at a war time type production level, with newer, better equipment. We've moved extremely slowly on these things. If the West wants to convince me that they're serious about giving Ukraine the tools it needs to win, they'd announce the following ADDITIONAL supplies for Ukraine.

Main Battle Tanks
62x M1A1 Abrams (USA)
31x M1A1 Abrams (Australia)
31x Challenger 2 (Britain)
31x Leopard 2A4 (Germany)
15x Leopard 2A4 (Spain)
15x Leopard 2A4 (Czech Republic]
15x Leopard 2A4 (Slovakia)
10x Leopard 2A5 (Sweden)
10x Leopard 2A4 (Finland)
8x Leopard 2A4 (Canada)
8x Leopard 2A4 (Norway)
8x Leopard 2A4 (Greece)
3x Leopard 2A6 (Portugal)
100x Leopard 1A5 (Belgium)
100x Leopard 1A5 (Germany)
62x PT-91 Twardy (Poland)
62× T-80U Pakistan (EU)

Notes

1. USA would expedite the shipment of their stored M1A2's to Australia, allowing the Aussies to ship a Ukrainian battalion of M1A1's to Ukraine.

2. Czech Republic and Slovakia would send the 15x Leopard 2A4s they're each getting in the deal they made with Germany, directly to Ukraine, who is much more in need of them.

3. Belgium, maybe in partnership with the Netherlands, would pay a premium for the Belgian Leopard 1A5s in storage with the private arms dealer, and get those moving towards Ukraine.

4. The USA would expedite the shipment of additional M1A1 Abrams to Poland, allowing them to send virtually all of the rest of their PT-91 Twardys to Ukraine.

5. The EU would pay a premium to cash strapped Pakistan to buyback two battalions worth of T-80U MBTs that Ukraine sold Pakistan in the first place. The cost is small peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

6. Training would be expanded to several more countries, with the idea of having all of these platforms delivered to Ukraine for the fall, to continue the offensive after the first wave is inevitably blunted at some point.

Infantry Fighting Vehicles

200x Bradley M2 ODS (USA)
100x Stryker (USA)
100x Marder (Germany)
100x Warrior (Britain)
100x LAV 6.0 (Canada)
100x Rosomak (Poland / Finland)
100x CV90 (Nordic countries)
60x AMX10-RC (France)

Notes

1. USA is replacing this Bradley variant anyways. They can easily afford to send them. They have almost 5000 of them.

2. Both the Marder and Warrior are being replaced in Germany and Britain, with deliveries scheduled for this year. They can afford to send them.

3. Canada is not facing any threat. They can easily send 100 of their LAV 6.0s and purchase 100 more to be delivered over the next 3 years.

4. France is phasing out the AMX10-RC anyways. Might as well put them to use in Ukraine.

5. While the Stryker is more of a hybrid IFV / APC, the USA has more than 4000 of them. Both that platform and the Polish / finish Rosomak are highly valuable, mult-irole vehicles.

Artillery
36x M777 (USA/Canada/Australia)
18x M109A6 Paladin (USA)
24x Panzerhaubitze 2000 (Germany/Italy/Netherlands)
12x Krab (Poland)
12x CAESAR (France)
100x Varied 120mm mortar systems (USA / EU)

Notes

1. M777 could use replenishing. The West has the assets to make that happen. If you want to replenish your stocks, order more. BAE is happy to leave the assembly line open after their order for India is complete.

2. Ukraine ordered 100 Panzerhaubitze 2000s. That delivery is going to take multiple years to complete. Send more from existing inventories and use some of the new ones to backfill those that are donated to them.

3. France is upgrading to CAESAR- NG anyways, send more of your older models now. This is the war they were made for and you don't even have to fight it.

Miscellaneous

- 500x Hellfire (USA/Britain)
- 300x ATACMS (USA)
- 300x JASSM (USA)
- 100x TAURUS (Germany / Spain)
- 100x Storm Shadow (Britain)
- 100x SCALP (France)
- 50x RBS-15 (Sweden)
- 10,000 varied aviation rockets (USA / EU)
- 1000x varied kamikaze drones (coalition)

Aviation
48x F-16 Fighting Falcons (USA / Netherlands / Denmark)
48x Panavia Tornados (Germany / Italy / Britain)
- Unlimited supply of standoff missiles and bombs.

Notes

This one is key. $40,000 usd salary per month salary, for any retired / formerly qualified western pilot, willing to go to Ukraine and fly these platforms as members of the International Legion's aviation wing, while Ukrainian pilots train on them in the USA and Europe. My goal is to attract roughly 200 international pilots, willing to sign a 1 year "get us through" contract, for $500,000 each, at a total cost of a paltry $100 million usd. This will be a shared cost by the coalition helping Ukraine.

Essentially, I'm suggesting that they train an additional 70,000 Ukrainians over the coming months, fully kit them out and transfer enough armor and artillery to make them the strongest individual army in Europe. Then supplement them with aviation and the pilots they need to fly that aviation in the meantime. I'm estimating the cost of all of this to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 Billion usd, split proportionately by 35+ countries. Essentially, peanuts.
 
Last edited:

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,831
Reactions
14 2,806
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Any DMZ would have to be in Russia's territory, not Ukraine's. DMZ in Ukraine's territory would still be as good as occupied, and we Turkish Cypriots know how UN peacekeepers treat victims of aggression in such circumstances.
There is no value to the West in a DMZ. The value to us is having Russia's economy crippled by the costs associated with the war, their currency devalued on the international stage, their army crippled for a generation, while the West has an excuse to fully modernize their own military power and to expand NATO to Russia's doorstep, so they're unable to bully their neighbour's anymore, without automatically triggering article 5 and having their shit pushed from their asses to their throats.

Putin screwed up royally and made a major geopolitical miscalculation. This is the best chance the West is going to get to stick the knife into Russia, twist it really, really deep and watch them bleed out all over themselves. Putin thought we were soft and decadent. He's learning, the hard way, that we're as evil, selfish, cold blooded and merciless as anyone else, especially when you threaten our interests... And collectively, we're far more capable than Russia in every relative way.
 

F-6 enthusiast

Well-known member
Messages
417
Reactions
1 595
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Air power 101 for dummies and why people should stop whinning about Russians bombing some cities.

While Douhet may sound narrow-minded, he was not just describing the benefits of airpower but also working to sway the public, civilian policymakers, and military leadership towards a wholly new line of thought regarding war. Douhet laid a foundation for employment doctrine with several major tenets that while not a guarantee for war, have influenced airpower and warfare ever since. The first tenet included the combination of high explosive, incendiary, and gas bombs with the utility of the latter coming from its ability to prevent emergency responders from assisting after an attack. Targeting has always been an essential element of airpower doctrine and Douhet felt that
“In general, aerial offensives will be directed against such targets at peacetime industrial and commercial establishments; important buildings, private and public; transportation arteries and centers; and certain designated areas of civilian population as well.”
==========
Mitchell does not focus on the specifics of technology such as units of bombardment or Battleplanes in his major work as Douhet did, but his major concepts are:
  1. An independent air force, run by airmen, is a necessary component of airpower.
  2. Strategic bombardment of vital industrial and population centers will eliminate the enemy’s ability to make war

Douhet clearly knows something people don't and he's Italian, not Russian
Mitchell also knows something...something about the use of air power and he's American, not Russian

Both are father of modern air power.

215px-Giulio_Douhet.jpg
army.mil-62924-2010-01-28-160115.jpg



In the the Balkan intervention, Iraq-Iran, Persian gulf 1.0 and 2.0 and even as recent as Armenia-Azerbaijan war, the use of airpower to "terrorize" the population has and always will remain the same.

Airpower is always about achieveing punishing blow in the tactical and strategic levels.



Some can be fooled by by the sway of public opinion, I refuse to.

As I said, the difference between Russia and everyone else is just happens to be the Russians aren't as good as we used to think when it comes to the application of air power.
honorable mention : Curtis Lemay (USAF)
His ''theories'' were put to the test in Linebacker and Rolling Thunder
Respective countries which these ppl served under have skeletons in their closets
some Criticisms/jokes labelled at Russian forces is that it not efficient in its savagery compared to the established players.
 

F-6 enthusiast

Well-known member
Messages
417
Reactions
1 595
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
while 75 years ago we were murdering each other like psychopaths.
A lot More brutality happened after WW2
, Violence by European states did not stop.
The attention and brutality was diverted to the anti-colonial movements. War was conducted much like the same way Russia is conducting war in Ukraine. The same thing over and over again
> movements pop up to drive away European occupiers
> Occupying army lets the dog loose on the population
> Foreign power opposed to occupier sends aid to said movements/people
> Rinse and repeat
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
4,552
Reactions
4 7,822
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
This is the mg31 that putin specializes in launching dagger hyper-sonic missiles.
The fire-breathing engine is really awesome

People do not realize, but there are so many of russian military platforms which are with poor quality.
Percentage of failed military platform of russia is to high. In other word they are really junks

 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,797
Reactions
98 9,198
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Putin screwed up royally and made a major geopolitical miscalculation. This is the best chance the West is going to get to stick the knife into Russia, twist it really, really deep and watch them bleed out all over themselves. Putin thought we were soft and decadent. He's learning, the hard way, that we're as evil, selfish, cold blooded and merciless as anyone else, especially when you threaten our interests... And collectively, we're far more capable than Russia in every relative way.

That is not the issue for now.

But ultimately the question is, how far West will go?

No matter how capable you are compared to Putin's army, Russia will continue to be a significant threat for contemporary global order.

1. It is not possible to strip it from its VETO. (And Russians will continue to use it to disrupt Western interest.)

2. It has world the largest natural resources. (So trade with emerging economies will continue)

3. It has world largest nuclear arsenal.


And for that, it is simply not possible to totally cut them off or defeat them completely.

Sooner or later, West will need to find an off-ramp solution to this conflcit.
 

Barry

Contributor
Messages
656
Reactions
1 1,682
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
There is no value to the West in a DMZ. The value to us is having Russia's economy crippled by the costs associated with the war, their currency devalued on the international stage, their army crippled for a generation, while the West has an excuse to fully modernize their own military power and to expand NATO to Russia's doorstep, so they're unable to bully their neighbour's anymore, without automatically triggering article 5 and having their shit pushed from their asses to their throats.

Putin screwed up royally and made a major geopolitical miscalculation. This is the best chance the West is going to get to stick the knife into Russia, twist it really, really deep and watch them bleed out all over themselves. Putin thought we were soft and decadent. He's learning, the hard way, that we're as evil, selfish, cold blooded and merciless as anyone else, especially when you threaten our interests... And collectively, we're far more capable than Russia in every relative way.
I agree, I just think it's rich for the Indonesian peace initiative that a dmz should exist within Ukrainian territory. They're the victim here
 

contricusc

Contributor
Messages
543
Reactions
8 812
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
A lot More brutality happened after WW2
, Violence by European states did not stop.
The attention and brutality was diverted to the anti-colonial movements.

Yes, you are right, but this also stopped after a period. With time, European powers lost their colonies and gave up on the ideas of imperialism.

When all Western European powers gave up on their imperialistic ambitions, it is extremely insulting to see Russia trying to expand like an Empire right in the center of Europe.
 

contricusc

Contributor
Messages
543
Reactions
8 812
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
The term 'civilized' in European terms maybe. The standard of civilized itself differs from civilizations, peoples. For example the civilized European entrenched and state enforced homosexualism, people on the other side of the world would find it disgusting and belongs to the jungle.

Do not equate your freedom of travel = civilized,

While there are different standards of what “civilizied” means, there are some common concepts that are universal.

Living in peace, not stealing, murdering, raping, etc is the basis of being civilized. You ca’t call yourself civilized if you engage in such actions. These things are universal.

In the last few decades, Europeans started to live in a civilized way, in the sense that we no longer wage war against each other, try to steal territories or murder our neighbors.

Free travel is a sign of confidence in your neighbor. It means you trust him enough to be worthy of entering your country without additional checks.

Eureope has made huge progress when it comes to inter-country relations, and the Russian invasion is an insult to every sane European. This is why we will support Ukraine until it liberates its country and wins the war.
 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,831
Reactions
14 2,806
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
That is not the issue for now.

But ultimately the question is, how far West will go?

No matter how capable you are compared to Putin's army, Russia will continue to be a significant threat for contemporary global order.

1. It is not possible to strip it from its VETO. (And Russians will continue to use it to disrupt Western interest.)

2. It has world the largest natural resources. (So trade with emerging economies will continue)

3. It has world largest nuclear arsenal.


And for that, it is simply not possible to totally cut them off or defeat them completely.

Sooner or later, West will need to find an off-ramp solution to this conflcit.
There is no way for anyone to make Russia Completely irrelevant. The idea is to ruin the standard of living enough for their people for them to consider political change, and force them to spend far more money than they want to on defense, with NATO along the entirety of their border.

Russia has a declining population and this war is causing a brain drain of some its most capable people, who are fleeing the country to live somewhere with more freedoms and a better standard of living. Russia will naturally decline on its own and it will increasingly become a petro slave to India and China as they emerge. The West's land armies were largely created to blunt the Soviet / Russian threat. Right now we're getting the cheapest possible price to neuter Russia's ability to project power in Europe. We don't need Russia eliminated, we simply need them to be far inferior to NATO. This war is forcing them to burn through the arsenal that the Soviets and the Russians spent 40 years stockpiling. By the conclusion of the war their ability to invade any capable military power will be blunted for a generation. That's a win for NATO.

Remember, Russia has a smaller GDP than Canada. It's a huge country with 140,000+ million people (and declining) but it's seeing virtually no growth. It was counting on growing it's natural gas / oil relationships with the rest of Europe to help fund its growth. That's no more. Now it will increasingly rely on China and India to replace those exports and both of those countries will shrewedly exploit Russia, who needs them as buyers. Over the next decade, we're going to see Russia struggle, not thrive.

We're even starting to see the Russian pundits realize that this war is going horribly for them.

 
Last edited:

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,831
Reactions
14 2,806
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Ukraine 🇺🇦 has been hammering the Russian occupied of Berdyansk for the last week, with Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Lots of videos have been emerging about the strikes. Of course, Russia claims they're intercepting all of the cruise missiles, as they struggle mightily to enforce the narrative that their air defense has everything under control.

Of course, satellite imagery is telling a very different story. He is an example of Ukrainian strikes on warehouses that Russia has been using to store supplies.


 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,485
Reactions
15 9,313
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
There is no way for anyone to make Russia Completely irrelevant. The idea is to ruin the standard of living enough for their people for them to consider political change, and force them to spend far more money than they want to on defense, with NATO along the entirety of their border.

Russia has a declining population and this war is causing a brain drain of some its most capable people, who are fleeing the country to live somewhere with more freedoms and a better standard of living. Russia will naturally decline on its own and it will increasingly become a petro slave to India and China as they emerge. The West's land armies were largely created to blunt the Soviet / Russian threat. Right now we're getting the cheapest possible price to neuter Russia's ability to project power in Europe. We don't need Russia eliminated, we simply need them to be far inferior to NATO. This war is forcing them to burn through the arsenal that the Soviets and the Russians spent 40 years stockpiling. By the conclusion of the war their ability to invade any capable military power will be blunted for a generation. That's a win for NATO.

Remember, Russia has a smaller GDP than Canada. It's a huge country with 140,000+ million people (and declining) but it's seeing virtually no growth. It was counting on growing it's natural gas / oil relationships with the rest of Europe to help fund its growth. That's no more. Now it will increasingly rely on China and India to replace those exports and both of those countries will shrewedly exploit Russia, who needs them as buyers. Over the next decade, we're going to see Russia struggle, not thrive.

We're even starting to see the Russian pundits realize that this war is going horribly for them.



When it comes to Russian TV sometimes i wonder if what were seeing is Russian social engineering. We know these people are hand picked and the state has the final say on the message and ive seen too many videos now where one panellist basically points out the obvious reality, only to be shut down by the irrationality of the majority. Is this no more then state training, to condition the russian people to see the obvious reality and reason of their fellow russians as false and wrong? Basically conditioning the Russian people to see white as black and black as white? And also to portray the reality opinion as a fringe minority opinion?

The guy points out that at the peak of soviet power, it couldn't compete economically with the west. Today economically Russia is nothing compared to the west so its impossible to out compete them in terms of pouring material into Ukraine. I can't believe that all the other panellists around him are that dumb not see what he's saying. I mean when the host says Russia is more flexible today as if to suggest its better economically and industrially today then it was at the peak of soviet power, is outlandish. These are grown men, surely this has to be an act?

Then the thing about giving a town back, the guy says so your saying we lost thousands of soldiers to what give the town back? Basically pointing out how outlandish the statement is.

But i would hate to be a russian today who sees the reality, he must imagine his entire country has gone mad.
 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,831
Reactions
14 2,806
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
When it comes to Russian TV sometimes i wonder if what were seeing is Russian social engineering. We know these people are hand picked and the state has the final say on the message and ive seen too many videos now where one panellist basically points out the obvious reality, only to be shut down by the irrationality of the majority. Is this no more then state training, to condition the russian people to see the obvious reality and reason of their fellow russians as false and wrong? Basically conditioning the Russian people to see white as black and black as white? And also to portray the reality opinion as a fringe minority opinion?

The guy points out that at the peak of soviet power, it couldn't compete economically with the west. Today economically Russia is nothing compared to the west so its impossible to out compete them in terms of pouring material into Ukraine. I can't believe that all the other panellists around him are that dumb not see what he's saying. I mean when the host says Russia is more flexible today as if to suggest its better economically and industrially today then it was at the peak of soviet power, is outlandish. These are grown men, surely this has to be an act?

Then the thing about giving a town back, the guy says so your saying we lost thousands of soldiers to what give the town back? Basically pointing out how outlandish the statement is.

But i would hate to be a russian today who sees the reality, he must imagine his entire country has gone mad.
There is no doubt that that these segments are engineered by the the Russian State, but what's important to focus on is how the narrative evolves over time. As the Russian struggles in this conflict mount, the narrative shifts from confidence, to more of a conversation of "we can't actually compete". They're essentially planting the seeds of defeat in the minds of the population, preparing them for an eventual resolution to this conflict that isn't favorable to Russia. The narrative changes subtly, over time, so as not to be too obvious.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Why don't you broker that deal by giving up roughly 15-17% of Indonesia to Ukraine to compensate them for their lost territory, shipping ports, coast line, natural resources, etc. That would be an example of fanatstic deal brokering.
Yeah I must admit, his statement are not well thought for diplomatic missions.

While there are different standards of what “civilizied” means, there are some common concepts that are universal.

Living in peace, not stealing, murdering, raping, etc is the basis of being civilized. You ca’t call yourself civilized if you engage in such actions. These things are universal.

In the last few decades, Europeans started to live in a civilized way, in the sense that we no longer wage war against each other, try to steal territories or murder our neighbors.

Free travel is a sign of confidence in your neighbor. It means you trust him enough to be worthy of entering your country without additional checks.

Eureope has made huge progress when it comes to inter-country relations, and the Russian invasion is an insult to every sane European. This is why we will support Ukraine until it liberates its country and wins the war.

Waging war has nothing to do with being civilized. Being Civilized means being at an advanced stage of socio-cultural development, but nothing to do with waging violence, stealing (which is a vague term to begin with).

If 'not stealing' is your standard of what being civilized is, then please understand that the civilized world today's economy is based on the stealing of wealth by the rich from the poor (interests), yet the economy based of usury and interest is the adopted standard of economy of the 21st century 'civilized' men. Clearly your definition of stealing, killing etc is not a standard of a civilized nature.

War is just politics by other means ( Von Clausewitz) and unless the world stop doing politics altogether, then war is just as ethical as politicking. Mao Zedong summarize it clearly...

quote-politics-is-war-without-bloodshed-while-war-is-politics-with-bloodshed-mao-zedong-52-92-32.jpg



In fact there's no guarantee that the Russo-Ukraine war will be the last war on Earth and there's no guarantee that Romania for example, will not wage war somewhere in the future.

A state adapts to the strategic situation it finds itself in, and the course of action has multiple variables that leads into one. What Russia finds itself into is just a shit ton of variable combined with the failed calculation of Putin against the strength of his enemy vice versa his own, and his complete ignorance of what the combined strength of his enemy is capable of.

Nothing to do with being civilized. Waging war itself is part of an advanced stage of civilization. Because no country wage war unless it has at least a developed, military,economic and technological sector. And its even more true in the 20th and 21st century.

The more correct terms for your excuse is not being uncivilized, but being inhumane. Learn the difference.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,925
Reactions
7 18,877
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Russians have themselves to blame they could have taken numerous steps to at least build a East Slavic world but instead botched it up with their usual bs of about how Ukrainians dont exist.

Then again Russians would not bother building or developing or using any kind of soft power.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Then again Russians would not bother building or developing or using any kind of soft power.

They don't have the necessary tools for soft power either. They don't produce smart phones, they don't produce gadgets that young people's around the world crave nor cars with brand power that executives ride and associated with, no pop culture that is exportable etc etc. What they have is a large stock of gas and that works with select countries like Germany to support the industry.

The lack of soft power and the ability to produce anything of importance after the collapse of the S.U is the prequisite of the Maidan which is basically a protest against the government cancelling economic opportunities with EU which was then traded with Russian gas....the rest is history.

A smart statesmen would have realized that after the collapse of the S.U, Russia is nowhere near competitive enough to restore back its influence safe for Central Asia. Its natural then from then on, going forward, Belarus, Baltics and Ukraine will slowly detach itself to follow the money (the West). It would need generations of rebuilding the country. Overhaul the political, judicial, economic, industrial base to better compete as a 21st century country. Instead what Putin did is consolidate power at all cost, sometimes sacrificing efficiency by placing Putin's own henchmen in strategic positions such as banks, oil industry etc. You can watch how Putin's 'friends' destroy and milk the country remaining strategic sector and only enrich themselves in the process here.


I think Putin, lacks what Deng XiaoPing of China had back when he assumed control and premiership of China after the cultural revolution, a long term multi generational overhaul and modernization of the country to better face off the rest of the world once 'the time comes'. If he's into restoring the Russian empire to its former greatness he should've had a clear strategic roadmap on what and when the country must do. Like at what GDP level it should launch a reconquest of its former zone of influence, at what stage of advancement is its microchip industry to better withstand sanctions and keep up with miniaturization and just overall at what level of readiness is the military and its MIC ready just in case the collective West pour all its support behind a potential foe. Many of this would off course be achieved without the destructive interference of the Siloviki on Russia's economic and industrial base.

As one member puts it clearly, Russia's GDP is only a bit more than Italy and below Canada with a population only a fraction of Russia, I recall reading NY Post comparing Russia to a big gas station in Europe which is kinda true.

In fact when it comes to influence and soft power, Iran's influence would make Russian soft power effort looks like kindergarten. Iran products like food, clothing, and other kind of staples products flood countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (and possibly Afghanistan next). Yet Iran has the strategic patience Russians lacked and they yet to 'invade' any country in its surroundings.

I would rate Putin 3/10 in terms of statemanship.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
As for Prabowo, he should stop acting like Indonesia has any influence outside ASEAN or even has any means to enforce anything as far as Europe. A conflict in Europe is a European problem, the best course of action is to shut up and let the Europeans do their things and depending on the outcome (Russia W or L) Indonesia must at best issue statements which neither offend both sides nor appease both sides. Stick with the "We hope both parties commits restraints and select peace instead of war blah blah blah".
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom