Leoparden und Marder for Ukraine

[mgr 179]

https://chng.it/RBqbJgJ9zB

 

Hi again,

 

Here's a request from change.org for Olaf Scholz to send heavy weaponry to the Ukraine in an attempt to shorten the war.

Please sign and share if you agree.

 

Greetings

[scook17 247]

Interesting that Germany has such a public support/not support platform. The UK introduced one too. If the issue gets to a large enough number of people supporting it, the UK parliament is required to debate the issue.

 

However, this and other platforms, fail to allow people to vote against the issue in discussion. So they are not in fact representative, but simply a way to put forward an issue.

 

The issue of supporting Ukraine in responding to the Russian invasion is a complex one. Adding weapons facilitates the ongoing fighting. Not providing them means Russia will overrun Ukraine. Giving Ukraine weapons to equalize the conflict clearly worked in Kyiv. My concern is western powers, especially the US, has every interest in continuing the conflict as they bear none of the consequences and it serves only to weaken their perceived enemy, Russia. Europe on the other hand pays significantly for the ongoing conflict and would rather see a settlement, in whatever form that takes.

 

Those that say Russia will win, or Ukraine will throw out the Russians are deluded. There likely outcome, like WW1, is there will be a stalemate resolution to the conflict, of that I am sure. Neither side will 'win' so to say. The number of lives lost in a stalemate until the two leaders are 'forced' to come to the table will be huge. How arming Ukraine will shorten or lengthen the war is very much open to debate, and is in no way clear cut.

 

How much say the common people get in any of this is just a poor reflection of how European democracy is not in fact a democracy but controlled by those in power. Sites like change.org would not be necessary if Germany was to adopt the swiss model of interested parties directly voting on key issues. I personally think the German government will send weapons to Ukraine as an when they see it as necessary. I understand I am not privy to the information they have, something which can not be shared with the general population, so must leave it to those in charge to make the correct call, as to what, when and how much.

[fraufruit 41,931]

3 hours ago, scook17 said:

European democracy is not in fact a democracy but controlled by those in power.

 

Who the people elect. That is democracy.

[yesterday 1,979]

4 hours ago, scook17 said:

I

How much say the common people get in any of this is just a poor reflection of how European democracy is not in fact a democracy but controlled by those in power. Sites like change.org would not be necessary if Germany was to adopt the swiss model of interested parties directly voting on key issues. 

 

I can agree with the sentiment, that people should have the right to vote on major issues and would have agreed with 30 years ago, now I think that it does not really work either.

 

I think if people got the vote on higher public services and low taxes, people would vote yes, thats because most people cannot see the link between them.

 

Look at the BREXIT vote, Boris said we ( the UK ) could get a better deal outside the EU and then grow the economy to lower taxes, and just look what has happened.

 

The thing is most people do not really have the interest to read throw all the benefits or negatives of a a situation, they just make a flash decision and go with it, without even considering or researching it, so are more likely to get things wrong. Politians are kinda paid to listen to all the economic data and make a decision from it.

 

I suppose I am with Churchill on this " democracy is not perfect, but its kinda of the best of all of the other crap solutions we have", 

 

Thats why a representative democracy is not a perfect, because people do not decide on every major issue, but  at least the ecomany kinda runs ok most of the time

 

 

 

 

[slammer 876]

4 hours ago, scook17 said:

Interesting that Germany has such a public support/not support platform. The UK introduced one too. If the issue gets to a large enough number of people supporting it, the UK parliament is required to debate the issue.

 

However, this and other platforms, fail to allow people to vote against the issue in discussion. So they are not in fact representative, but simply a way to put forward an issue.

 

The issue of supporting Ukraine in responding to the Russian invasion is a complex one. Adding weapons facilitates the ongoing fighting. Not providing them means Russia will overrun Ukraine. Giving Ukraine weapons to equalize the conflict clearly worked in Kyiv. My concern is western powers, especially the US, has every interest in continuing the conflict as they bear none of the consequences and it serves only to weaken their perceived enemy, Russia. Europe on the other hand pays significantly for the ongoing conflict and would rather see a settlement, in whatever form that takes.

 

Those that say Russia will win, or Ukraine will throw out the Russians are deluded. There likely outcome, like WW1, is there will be a stalemate resolution to the conflict, of that I am sure. Neither side will 'win' so to say. The number of lives lost in a stalemate until the two leaders are 'forced' to come to the table will be huge. How arming Ukraine will shorten or lengthen the war is very much open to debate, and is in no way clear cut.

 

How much say the common people get in any of this is just a poor reflection of how European democracy is not in fact a democracy but controlled by those in power. Sites like change.org would not be necessary if Germany was to adopt the swiss model of interested parties directly voting on key issues. I personally think the German government will send weapons to Ukraine as an when they see it as necessary. I understand I am not privy to the information they have, something which can not be shared with the general population, so must leave it to those in charge to make the correct call, as to what, when and how much.

Actually I believe that Russia has already achieved the objectives of this conflict.
To understand this we have to go back, the crimea was never, ever going to be anything other than belonging to Russia. As long as Ukraine was friendly to Russia it wasn´t a problem. Queue the American meddling in the Maidan revolution in 2014 with the result that Ukraine became west friendly. This is something that Russian can not have as they need total access to Crimea and their only warm water port. The tiny connection to Crimea over the straits of Kerch is strategically too vulnerable to being cut off.

That is why only the eastern parts of Ukraine have been occupied, to provide a secure and stable corridor to the Crimea.

There is a really good book by Tim Marschall called "Prisoners of geography" addressing just this topic.

 

[travelerworker 116]

20 hours ago, mgr said:

https://chng.it/RBqbJgJ9zB

 

Hi again,

 

Here's a request from change.org for Olaf Scholz to send heavy weaponry to the Ukraine in an attempt to shorten the war.

Please sign and share if you agree.

 

Greetings

no more war, no more guys, to shorten the war the option is peace

negotiation

no violence

Gandhi's movement to free India from English oppression is a good example here  

[yesterday 1,979]

13 hours ago, slammer said:

Actually I believe that Russia has already achieved the objectives of this conflict.

 

Then why did Russia make a move on Kiev in the first month of the current war ?, if that was not part of its military objective ?

The attack does not make sense, if all they wanted was Crimea.

 

13 hours ago, slammer said:

To understand this we have to go back, the crimea was never, ever going to be anything other than belonging to Russia. As long as Ukraine was friendly to Russia it wasn´t a problem. Queue the American meddling in the Maidan revolution in 2014 with the result that Ukraine became west friendly.

I would agree that this could have happened, but there is no real evidence that it did happen in the public domain.

It could also just be that they wanted to be closer to the west, 

We will probably never know what happened.

 

13 hours ago, slammer said:

 

This is something that Russian can not have as they need total access to Crimea and their only warm water port.

 

Russia already has a warm water port in the Black sea!! called  Novorossiysk

from here  Russia's Warm Water Port - WorldAtlas

 

It says among other things

 

This is Russia's main Black Sea port. Novorossiysk is located within Tsemess Bay. Where this Black Sea port city is located, the bay has been known for over 2,000 years as one of the Black Sea's better bays. Tsemess Bay is the only suitable natural harbor along the Russia's Black Sea coast. Being ringed by mountains makes this bay a decent harbor.

 

I must admit, even if Russia did not have a warm water port, it does not give them the right to go and steal one from another country. Its like you saying that you do not have a colour TV, so you have the right to come around and steal my TV. There are plenty of land locked countries in the world, Austria and Switzerland to name but 2, but they just accept it and work with it, why cannot Russia do the same ?

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, slammer said:

 

 

 

That is why only the eastern parts of Ukraine have been occupied, to provide a secure and stable corridor to the Crimea.

 

Again why did Russia try to take Kiev, if it only wanted Crimea ?

 

13 hours ago, slammer said:

 

[MikeMelga 7,240]

15 hours ago, slammer said:

Actually I believe that Russia has already achieved the objectives of this conflict.
To understand this we have to go back, the crimea was never, ever going to be anything other than belonging to Russia. As long as Ukraine was friendly to Russia it wasn´t a problem. Queue the American meddling in the Maidan revolution in 2014 with the result that Ukraine became west friendly. This is something that Russian can not have as they need total access to Crimea and their only warm water port. The tiny connection to Crimea over the straits of Kerch is strategically too vulnerable to being cut off.

That is why only the eastern parts of Ukraine have been occupied, to provide a secure and stable corridor to the Crimea.

There is a really good book by Tim Marschall called "Prisoners of geography" addressing just this topic.

 

BULLSHIT. BIG. TIME. BULLSHIT!

 

Not only you are ignoring the attack on the rest of the country, you are ignoring that Russia had access to Crimea's harbour per agreement with Ukraine.

Let's call the bull by the horns: Putin's ego and a need for an external enemy created this fucking mess.

 

See you in a few months, when Crimea is back on Ukranian's hands.

[Goodbye_BlueSky 51]

On 11/1/2022, 2:16:13, mgr said:

"send heavy weaponry to the Ukraine in an attempt to shorten the war."

"Sending more heavy weapons will shorten the war" is a very populistic, binary (black/white) view. How do you know for sure that more weapons will shorten the war? And what if it doesnt ? Who does it really help if it doesnt shorten rather make the war longer?

That's the problem I see with almost 98% of Germany media and biggest part of major political parties since Feb,24 - they have all taken the same side/decision about what to do. Isn't it great that in our perfect democracies, no matter how different general people think, at the end policy makers all come to the same decision?

Not saying I have a solution, it has become too complecated. Not oppossing Russia isn't an option either. I think "Das Kind ist in den Brunnen gefallen", and Germany would be one of the country getting hurt most at the end (Other than Ukraine and Russia ofcourse) . The experts on the other side of Atlantic are probably very happy, the stupid Europeans are at war again !! 

[slammer 876]

3 hours ago, Goodbye_BlueSky said:

"Sending more heavy weapons will shorten the war" is a very populistic, binary (black/white) view. How do you know for sure that more weapons will shorten the war? And what if it doesnt ? Who does it really help if it doesnt shorten rather make the war longer?

That's the problem I see with almost 98% of Germany media and biggest part of major political parties since Feb,24 - they have all taken the same side/decision about what to do. Isn't it great that in our perfect democracies, no matter how different general people think, at the end policy makers all come to the same decision?

Not saying I have a solution, it has become too complecated. Not oppossing Russia isn't an option either. I think "Das Kind ist in den Brunnen gefallen", and Germany would be one of the country getting hurt most at the end (Other than Ukraine and Russia ofcourse) . The experts on the other side of Atlantic are probably very happy, the stupid Europeans are at war again !! 

 

6 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

BULLSHIT. BIG. TIME. BULLSHIT!

 

Not only you are ignoring the attack on the rest of the country, you are ignoring that Russia had access to Crimea's harbour per agreement with Ukraine.

Let's call the bull by the horns: Putin's ego and a need for an external enemy created this fucking mess.

 

See you in a few months, when Crimea is back on Ukranian's hands.

Well maybe, maybe not. The first casualty of war is the plan, the second is the truth...

The attack on the rest of the country makes perfect sense in a military way. Think about it before knee-jerking. Shock and awe your opponent. Bomb and shell and missile the capital and kill a few civilians. Not too many mind you but enough to hurt and have your opponents troops and military strategy confused and disoriented, then retreat and consolidate in your fall-back positions. Exactly what Russia did, and if you want to hurt your opponent more then fall back even more and let them in. Build a pocket and grate them down like parmesan cheese. Also what the Russians have done.

It is true that Russia had access to the ports, but they also had what amounts to almost partisan warfare in the lead up.

Quote

Russia already has a warm water port in the Black sea!! called  Novorossiysk

Yup, also true is that Novorossiysk is not Sevastapol.

 

I also agree with what Goodby_BlueSky writes, only I would go one step further and claim that it was the constant American meddling and the projected Eastern expansion of Nato that is the root of this war.

It is also my belief that without "The West" sending arms to Ukraine, the war would already have been forgotten by the western media and energy would still be cheap, inflation just a scary word and Kiev still in one piece. More or less.

Putin drew one of these red lines that the Americans are so fond of and nato crossed it, the rest is just cosmetics.

[murphaph 9,638]

Why are people so focused on shortening the war. The goal is to win the war against the aggressor and remove him from every square inch of UA territory.

[Eric7 538]

24 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Why are people so focused on shortening the war. The goal is to win the war against the aggressor and remove him from every square inch of UA territory.

 

To end the pointless loss of life... no?

 

It's pure fantasy to think that Russia will be driven out by force. Whether you like it or not, there needs to be a negotiated settlement.

[murphaph 9,638]

Like it was pure fantasy that Ukraine wouldn't be overrun in a week by the far superior forces of the aggressor.

[Eric7 538]

19 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Like it was pure fantasy that Ukraine wouldn't be overrun in a week by the far superior forces of the aggressor.

 

Superior forces? Ukraine have outnumbered the Russia forces at every point up to now.
That was one of the mistakes made by Russia.

[murphaph 9,638]

You're making my point for me.

[Eric7 538]

How do you figure that?

[travelerworker 116]

11 hours ago, murphaph said:

Why are people so focused on shortening the war. The goal is to win the war against the aggressor and remove him from every square inch of UA territory.

well...some people, most of normal people I would say, don't want to suffer, so shortening a war is a way not to suffer

most of the people feel empathy, don't want others suffer...so they want the war to finish.

then you have the sociopaths...;)

[fraufruit 41,931]

So stop the war and live under the dictator Putin. It's not what the people want.

[yesterday 1,979]

shorting the war just means letting Putin win, which means long term suffering.

 

Or short term suffering and hopefully the Ukraine wins, which means they can choose their own future, something Putin is not offering

[MikeMelga 7,240]

Russians are losing 700+ per day, plus probably triple of that in injured. That's 2500 out of combat per day, 75.000 per month! And weapons losses are also huge. This is clearly not sustainable.

They are losing troops at a ratio between 5:1 to 12:1, depending on the front area.

Kherson wil be retaken in 4-8 weeks. Then it's an open road to Crimea. The whole Crimea can get under HIMARS range before the end of the year. It's game over in the south.

The eastern front is more complicated near Donetsk. But up north-east, Ukranians are already cutting off supply lines and liberating a few towns per week.

 

If for some wacky reason the Russians don't capitulate, Ukraine might have liberated most of it before the summer.

I also suspect the russian army will rebel during the winter. My best bet is this is over one way or another by March.

I also think at best Russia will keep Donetsk, in exchange for cease fire and heavy compensations.