Ukraine

[Silvanus]

Somehow these neo-Nazis have restraint enough not to cover themselves in SS iconography, unlike their AFU counterparts. Meanwhile, you favor giving billions of dollars of heavy weaponry and other support to the Nazis that haven't shown such restraint.

Images abound of Wagner personnel adorning themselves in explicit Nazi iconography (including their co-founder). Several of which have already been posted.

Meanwhile, the neo-Nazi elements within the AFU-- such as Azov-- are a tiny fraction of the size of Wagner, and aren't deployed in aggressive overseas conflicts like Wagner is.

You're laundering the reputation of neo-Nazis because its convenient.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It might well supply Crimea with water.

However, the more immediate concern for Russia is that they are expecting a Ukrainian counteroffensive, and this is an obvious measure to take to impede a potential offensive in the region.

Is it actually? Or does that just sound kind of plausible if you don't think about it much?

If I'm going to blow a dam to impede an offensive, I'd probably want to do it while that offensive is going on instead of before, otherwise it's not much of an impediment. Potentially the opposite, in fact. The later it happens, the better, from a defensive point of view. Drainage is a thing, after all.

Let's also not forget that Ukraine previously blocked water supplies to Crimea after 2014, and it's not like Crimeans died of thirst (their crops, however, fared much less well).

Indeed, though partially that was due to relatively costly imports from Russia.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You're laundering the reputation of neo-Nazis because its convenient.

wow. have a mirror.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Is it actually? Or does that just sound kind of plausible if you don't think about it much?

If I'm going to blow a dam to impede an offensive, I'd probably want to do it while that offensive is going on instead of before, otherwise it's not much of an impediment. Potentially the opposite, in fact. The later it happens, the better, from a defensive point of view. Drainage is a thing, after all.

Depends, UK doctrine in the 80s (in preparation for an attack by the Soviets, oddly enough) stressed obstacles being created well in advance, not to stop an ongoing attack, but to encourage a future attack to go by another route.

 

[Silvanus]

wow. have a mirror.

Except for the fact I've openly acknowledged the neo-Nazi nature of battalions like Azov-- while also recognising they're minuscule in comparison with Wagner, and not deployed in 5-6 conflicts overseas.

Whereas you've repeatedly denied the neo-Nazi nature of Wagner.

If I'm going to blow a dam to impede an offensive, I'd probably want to do it while that offensive is going on instead of before, otherwise it's not much of an impediment.

The Russians themselves are saying the counteroffensive is already underway.

 

[Ag3ma]

Is it actually? Or does that just sound kind of plausible if you don't think about it much?

I think the issue is that it sounds plausible even when something thinks about it a lot. Even the most amateur student of warfare will have surely noticed the usefulness and extremely common tactic blowing up bridges to prevent travel (the dam is, of course, also a bridge). Flooding terrain to block passage is a little rarer for obvious reasons as it's often hard to accomplish, but also a well established principle (the Netherlands employed it).

If I'm going to blow a dam to impede an offensive, I'd probably want to do it while that offensive is going on instead of before, otherwise it's not much of an impediment. Potentially the opposite, in fact. The later it happens, the better, from a defensive point of view. Drainage is a thing, after all.

Another general principle is blow shit up whilst you can, because wait too long and you mind find someone's started the attack and disabled your explosives before you set them off. Whole battles and campaigns have turned on whether people managed to blow up a bridge or not.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

wow. have a mirror.

Astounding. The great rhetorical tactic of "I know you are but what am I".

 

[Thaluikhain]

Astounding. The great rhetorical tactic of "I know you are but what am I".

To be fair, you try coming up with a legitimate reason to justify supporting Russia against Ukraine.

 

[Silvanus]

Biden ‘knew of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream’ three months before explosion

Washington Post reports that European intelligence service told CIA Ukrainian military was planning attack

www.theguardian.com

Washington Post is reporting that a European intelligence agency saw (and then shared with the CIA and German intelligence) a plan drafted in June 2022 for a Ukrainian attack on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

 

[Dalisclock]

Biden ‘knew of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream’ three months before explosion

Washington Post reports that European intelligence service told CIA Ukrainian military was planning attack

www.theguardian.com

Washington Post is reporting that a European intelligence agency saw (and then shared with the CIA and German intelligence) a plan drafted in June 2022 for a Ukrainian attack on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

We know the Ukrainians would want to do for obvious reasons.

Of course, the question remains: Did they? Which we still don't know. Hell, IIRC, the Russians blamed "Anglo-Saxons" which I can only assume means the UK unless somehow they think the Vikings were invovled.

 

[davidmc1158]

We know the Ukrainians would want to do for obvious reasons.

Of course, the question remains: Did they? Which we still don't know. Hell, IIRC, the Russians blamed "Anglo-Saxons" which I can only assume means the UK unless somehow they think the Vikings were invovled.

Oh come on. Go full conspiracy theory on this one. It WAS Viking mercenaries which are used by the UK government for covert ops, recruit through their time-traveling program obtained by the British government from the alien tech they found in the UFO buried at Stonehenge. I mean, c'mon, it's just so blatantly obvious!

 

[Thaluikhain]

We know the Ukrainians would want to do for obvious reasons.

Of course, the question remains: Did they? Which we still don't know. Hell, IIRC, the Russians blamed "Anglo-Saxons" which I can only assume means the UK unless somehow they think the Vikings were invovled.

Well, although it's a simplification to say that the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were wholly separate groups, they weren't the same. But then, in 1066 the Normans took over from the Anglo-Saxons anyway.

Though, I imagine lots of Ukranians have more than zero Anglo-Saxons heritage.

Oh come on. Go full conspiracy theory on this one. It WAS Viking mercenaries which are used by the UK government for covert ops, recruit through their time-traveling program obtained by the British government from the alien tech they found in the UFO buried at Stonehenge. I mean, c'mon, it's just so blatantly obvious!

Not the stupidest thing I've heard, TBH.

 

[Kwak]

Not the stupidest thing I've heard, TBH.

Defending invading wagner mercenaries as the good guys springs to mind.

 

[Dalisclock]

Well, although it's a simplification to say that the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were wholly separate groups, they weren't the same. But then, in 1066 the Normans took over from the Anglo-Saxons anyway.

I was being a little pedantic but yeah. It's just wierd to hear them use the term "Anglo Saxon" like that, like Russia somehow forgot the UK is a thing despite the fact they casually toss the nuke threat about every so often.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I was being a little pedantic but yeah. It's just wierd to hear them use the term "Anglo Saxon" like that, like Russia somehow forgot the UK is a thing despite the fact they casually toss the nuke threat about every so often.

I know, but pointless pedantry sometimes is the best response to an absurd situation, I find.

Actually, though, Anglo-Saxon could just as easily be used to the rest of the Anglosphere, though not accurately that way either. Maybe it was New Zealand behind it.

 

[Ag3ma]

Well, although it's a simplification to say that the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were wholly separate groups, they weren't the same.

Indeed they were not. Vikings were from Denmark and Norway (and maybe Sweden a bit), Angles and Saxons were from northern Germany. They're also separated by several hundred years.

But then, in 1066 the Normans took over from the Anglo-Saxons anyway.

Sort of. But the 1066 invasion merely created a new aristocratic elite - probably only around 1% of the population of England, which otherwise remained comprehensively culturally Anglo-Saxon (bar some lingering Celtic fringes, e.g. Cornwall, Cumbria and around the Welsh border). The reality of this was reflected in Edward I making English the official language of the realm (the aristocracy before then speaking French).

 

[Thaluikhain]

Indeed they were not. Vikings were from Denmark and Norway (and maybe Sweden a bit), Angles and Saxons were from northern Germany. They're also separated by several hundred years.

I wouldn't say they were separate in time so much, they co-existed in what is now Britain.

Sort of. But the 1066 invasion merely created a new aristocratic elite - probably only around 1% of the population of England, which otherwise remained comprehensively culturally Anglo-Saxon (bar some lingering Celtic fringes, e.g. Cornwall, Cumbria and around the Welsh border). The reality of this was reflected in Edward I making English the official language of the realm (the aristocracy before then speaking French).

Ok, true, I worded that badly, when I say "took over" I meant that Normans took over the leadership, they did not totally expel or exterminate the local populations, though the Harrying was nasty.

 

[Lykosia]

We know the Ukrainians would want to do for obvious reasons.

Of course, the question remains: Did they? Which we still don't know. Hell, IIRC, the Russians blamed "Anglo-Saxons" which I can only assume means the UK unless somehow they think the Vikings were invovled.

Main question is really who benefited the most? I still have hard time seeing any befenits for Russia, it was their golden goose. Even after the invasion, they still sold gas through it and got funds they desperately needed. Benefits for Ukraine and the USA are easy to see.

I'm bit hesitant to blame everything on Russia. That gives Ukraine almost free lisence to do anything because "they'll blame Russia anyway."

 

[Satinavian]

Even after the invasion, they still sold gas through it and got funds they desperately needed. Benefits for Ukraine and the USA are easy to see.

No, they didn't.

Nordstream 2 was never active and cancelled as soon as the invasion began. Nordstream 1 was active for a while but then Russia stopped using it to apply preassure to Germany. Which didn't work at all. Seems that Russia also had vastly overestimated how much political power the gas reliance brought them. Like all the other doomsayers.

Then it was blown up and became a moot point. But it stopped being actually in use quite some time before.


I really don't know who actually blew it up. It could have been Russia but many others had better motives. The Russians always hoped that the West would cave in and try to go back to earlier economic relationships. Which means they should have hoped to use them again after the war.

 

[Ag3ma]

I really don't know who actually blew it up. It could have been Russia but many others had better motives. The Russians always hoped that the West would cave in and try to go back to earlier economic relationships. Which means they should have hoped to use them again after the war.

I can't see much reason Russia would have blown up its own pipeline. Whether short or long term, its ability to provide gas is an asset to it.

There is some rationale for some Western allies to disable the pipeline, in order to reduce Russia's ability to leverage gas supply and so "stiffen resolve" of other countries they thought might waver. There is, of course, even more rationale for Ukraine for do it for the same reason (as well as reducing the ability of Russia to sell gas and fund its war effort).