Ukraine related: Was Ukraine Government Is Handing Out Guns To Citizens, What Happened to Gun Control?
- Thread starter mat200
- Start date
Griswalduk
Known around here
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,114
- 25,521
@wrapter in the end the War Putin launched will seriously damage The Russian Federation, and all people there but the rich and corrupt.
Yes, Russia also damaging Ukrainians .. and reminding all those in Ukraine and Eastern Europe how much they do not want to be ruled by Russia ..
I see no reason for Pro-Russian's or Russophiles to be pleased with this ..
Cut the guy some slack. He can barely handle making a post with more then one link at a time, let alone realize there's an "edit" button so he doesn't have to spam a thread with 5 posts saying the same thing. You expect him to pull his head out of extremely pro-russian twitter accounts and understand why the war happened?
Or maybe he is that dumb.
I'll go with the second one.
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,114
- 25,521
Found this to be an interesting post to a youtube video from TIK ( "Did the Soviet Union win WW2 alone? " )
Youtube User
Hi, I would like to share a story which I regard as very important in the context of allied victory in the Second World War which is not known enough.
It's about explosives shipments to the USSR under the lend lease program.
The context is that the only impact explosive, as opposed to propulsion explosives, used during the war (99.6% of the total according to a figure I saw) was TNT, of which an ingredient was toluene. There were two sources to obtain toluene, coal and oil. Most nations used mainly coal to obtain it (so it really wasn't a problem for Germany), but the USSR insisted on using oil as well, around 40% of toluene or so (maybe 10% more or less) before the war came from oil.
The USSR found itself immediately in massive problems regarding explosives because about ⅔ of their coal was extracted from the Donbas and oil production fell from 31 milion tonnes in 1940 to 16 or so after the sabotage of their own fields in 1942.
As such one of the first requests of the USSR to the allies was to send explosives, which they sent as a final product as TNT or they sent toluene which was used to manufacture it.
These shipments, contrary to many others, came immediately to the USSR making a very important numerical difference since the beginning: in 1942 34% of the TNT used by the USSR was either sent directly or manufactured from allied shipments, this proportion grew to 65% in 1944. The proportion for the whole war is around 54%.
As such 54% of the whole artilley or tanks shells, bombs etc. used against the germans was directly due to allied shipments and the soviets could not have produced these explosives themselves.
Regarding propelling explosives, the ones used to propell shells and bullets, the most used were white smokeless powders.
I have less accurate data in this regard but the allies still proved massively important: in 1944 30% of artillery propellant explosives used by the USSR were given by the allies and in 1943 100% of the glycerin used by the soviets to produce these explosives was given by the allies.
Maybe around ⅔ of materials to produce these explosives was given by the allies in the duration of the whole war but I can't guarantee this data as opposed to the others.
Also the soviets, differently from TNT, could have produced inferior versions of these chemicals themselves, so the allied aid proved less decisive here
Most estimates assest that 60% of all casualties during this war were due to artillery, and given that all artillery shells only used TNT, and that the soviets could not produce enough of it, this really proves that lend lease was decisive from the start for soviet victory in the eastern front.
Zhukov after the war commented that "we didn't have explosives, gunpowder, we didn't have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives"
Sources:
1 Развитие производства взрывчатых веществ в СССР в 30-е гг. Хх В. И поставки по ленд-лизу в годы Великой Отечественной войны
2 Роль ленд-лиза в истории Великой Отечественной войны/Алексей Исаев (here on youtube)
Thanks
ref:
Youtube User
Hi, I would like to share a story which I regard as very important in the context of allied victory in the Second World War which is not known enough.
It's about explosives shipments to the USSR under the lend lease program.
The context is that the only impact explosive, as opposed to propulsion explosives, used during the war (99.6% of the total according to a figure I saw) was TNT, of which an ingredient was toluene. There were two sources to obtain toluene, coal and oil. Most nations used mainly coal to obtain it (so it really wasn't a problem for Germany), but the USSR insisted on using oil as well, around 40% of toluene or so (maybe 10% more or less) before the war came from oil.
The USSR found itself immediately in massive problems regarding explosives because about ⅔ of their coal was extracted from the Donbas and oil production fell from 31 milion tonnes in 1940 to 16 or so after the sabotage of their own fields in 1942.
As such one of the first requests of the USSR to the allies was to send explosives, which they sent as a final product as TNT or they sent toluene which was used to manufacture it.
These shipments, contrary to many others, came immediately to the USSR making a very important numerical difference since the beginning: in 1942 34% of the TNT used by the USSR was either sent directly or manufactured from allied shipments, this proportion grew to 65% in 1944. The proportion for the whole war is around 54%.
As such 54% of the whole artilley or tanks shells, bombs etc. used against the germans was directly due to allied shipments and the soviets could not have produced these explosives themselves.
Regarding propelling explosives, the ones used to propell shells and bullets, the most used were white smokeless powders.
I have less accurate data in this regard but the allies still proved massively important: in 1944 30% of artillery propellant explosives used by the USSR were given by the allies and in 1943 100% of the glycerin used by the soviets to produce these explosives was given by the allies.
Maybe around ⅔ of materials to produce these explosives was given by the allies in the duration of the whole war but I can't guarantee this data as opposed to the others.
Also the soviets, differently from TNT, could have produced inferior versions of these chemicals themselves, so the allied aid proved less decisive here
Most estimates assest that 60% of all casualties during this war were due to artillery, and given that all artillery shells only used TNT, and that the soviets could not produce enough of it, this really proves that lend lease was decisive from the start for soviet victory in the eastern front.
Zhukov after the war commented that "we didn't have explosives, gunpowder, we didn't have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives"
Sources:
1 Развитие производства взрывчатых веществ в СССР в 30-е гг. Хх В. И поставки по ленд-лизу в годы Великой Отечественной войны
2 Роль ленд-лиза в истории Великой Отечественной войны/Алексей Исаев (here on youtube)
Thanks
ref:
I agree but this war is damaging every country economically.
I am not pro anybody just post what I see for balance. I know its easy to blame Putin here. But even if he goes and his political opponents come to power, the Russian policy is very simple. Ukraine joing NATO is a redline and the US knows about this since early 90s.
If you ask me had US seen Russia as a ally rather then a adversary all thanks to Neocons and the MIC.
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
nsarchive.gwu.edu
Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today
The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with the west
www.theguardian.com
Remember Medvedev, he was russian president during Obama era, there is no way a US President and a Russian President will be that friendly alteast for the next 2 decades but what changed was US expansion of nato to include everyone surrounding russia but not Russia itself
Putin and Obama didn't get along but Putin and Bush Sr and Jr did get along. It all changed when Bush signed into law Nato expansion and again not including russia.
Bush backs Ukraine and Georgia for Nato membership
George Bush this morning said he "strongly supported" Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, and warned he would not allow Russia to veto its membership bid
www.theguardian.com
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,114
- 25,521
I agree but this war is damaging every country economically.
I am not pro anybody just post what I see for balance. I know its easy to blame Putin here. But even if he goes and his political opponents come to power, the Russian policy is very simple. Ukraine joing NATO is a redline and the US knows about this since early 90s.
If you ask me had US seen Russia as a ally rather then a adversary all thanks to Neocons and the MIC.
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
We would have have see US warplanes based in Russia bases as early as 2010.Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today
The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with the west
Remember Medvedev, he was russian president during Obama era, there is no way a US President and a Russian President will be that friendly alteast for the next 2 decades but what changed was US expansion of nato to include everyone surrounding russia but not Russia itself
Putin and Obama didn't get along but Putin and Bush Sr and Jr did get along. It all changed when Bush signed into law Nato expansion and again not including russia.
Bush backs Ukraine and Georgia for Nato membership
George Bush this morning said he "strongly supported" Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, and warned he would not allow Russia to veto its membership bid
Prior to 2014 Russia relationship was OK with West .. that is when there was a big turn thanks to Putin ..
I know we always like to blame the USA .. and the USA does deserve criticism .. still Putin's actions in 2014 was a wake up call and a chance for the European and USA to take a stronger stand against Putin .. had they done so then, then the 2022 Feb attack probably would not have happened ..
Griswalduk
Known around here
I agree but this war is damaging every country economically.
I am not pro anybody just post what I see for balance. I know its easy to blame Putin here. But even if he goes and his political opponents come to power, the Russian policy is very simple. Ukraine joing NATO is a redline and the US knows about this since early 90s.
If you ask me had US seen Russia as a ally rather then a adversary all thanks to Neocons and the MIC.
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
We would have have see US warplanes based in Russia bases as early as 2010.Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today
The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with the west
Remember Medvedev, he was russian president during Obama era, there is no way a US President and a Russian President will be that friendly alteast for the next 2 decades but what changed was US expansion of nato to include everyone surrounding russia but not Russia itself
Putin and Obama didn't get along but Putin and Bush Sr and Jr did get along. It all changed when Bush signed into law Nato expansion and again not including russia.
Bush backs Ukraine and Georgia for Nato membership
George Bush this morning said he "strongly supported" Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, and warned he would not allow Russia to veto its membership bid
Stephen Kotkin sets out why this theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In clip 1 he makes an Interesting analogy in response to Oliver Stone. In clip 2 he highlights why Russia is really a "great pretender" and In clip 3 he recites events during the various U.S. administrations you mention.
Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3
Last edited:
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,114
- 25,521
Putin has been offered numerous off ramps .. and each time he is doubling down .. even now, off ramps are there .. and yet more war .. talk about pulling punches to give Putin a chance to call it a day ..
Sorry, I have to go with the view of those who know the Russian Empire best .. Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, .. they all know the only way out of this is military now .. peace talks are only a chance for Russia to reload at this point.
Europe tried talks prior to Feb 2022 .. and Putin basically rejected them ..
Blaming anyone else for this is like blaming the Whites in the USA for the BLM rioters ..
Putin in plain english asked not to put anti missile defense system and stop expanding nato. He didn't want a war west did.
Misnk agreement was also a stall tactic to prop up ukraine according to Angela Merkel herself.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VK2HKXN4JFIHNF5W3QINMRNDHI.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Last press conference just before the war. He made did absolutely clear that their actions to invade or not depends on "Russian security guarantee and eastward expnasion of Nato is unnacceptable."
He gave plenty of warning. If a person only sees via "Putin Bad glasses" just like "orange man bad glasses" there is no point to have a rationale debate with that person.
Misnk agreement was also a stall tactic to prop up ukraine according to Angela Merkel herself.
Putin: Russia may have to make Ukraine deal one day, but partners cheated in the past
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia would likely have to reach agreements regarding Ukraine in the future, but felt betrayed by the breakdown of the Minsk agreements.
www.reuters.com
Last press conference just before the war. He made did absolutely clear that their actions to invade or not depends on "Russian security guarantee and eastward expnasion of Nato is unnacceptable."
He gave plenty of warning. If a person only sees via "Putin Bad glasses" just like "orange man bad glasses" there is no point to have a rationale debate with that person.
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,114
- 25,521
Putin in plain english asked not to put anti missile defense system and stop expanding nato. He didn't want a war west did.
Misnk agreement was also a stall tactic to prop up ukraine according to Angela Merkel herself.
Putin: Russia may have to make Ukraine deal one day, but partners cheated in the past
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia would likely have to reach agreements regarding Ukraine in the future, but felt betrayed by the breakdown of the Minsk agreements.
Last press conference just before the war. He made did absolutely clear that their actions to invade or not depends on "Russian security guarantee and eastward expnasion of Nato is unnacceptable."
He gave plenty of warning. If a person only sees via "Putin Bad glasses" just like "orange man bad glasses" there is no point to have a rationale debate with that person.
roflmao ..
Mr Trustworthy himself .. Mr All these troops surrounding you will not invade ..
Putin is full of it .. lies lies and lies .. you can not trust anything he states ..
The game he is playing is very clear .. he is an expansionist .. and wants to bring back the Glory days of the Soviet Union sphere of power ..
US did not have missiles to attack Russia in Ukraine ..
Now Putin has gotten it worse ..
NATO expansion
Germany Japan increasing defense spending
all of Europe increasing defense spending ..
Putin getting slammed now .. he really should not have played this game .. Russia will be worse off now ..
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,114
- 25,521
Griswalduk
Known around here
Putin in plain english asked not to put anti missile defense system and stop expanding nato. He didn't want a war west did.
Misnk agreement was also a stall tactic to prop up ukraine according to Angela Merkel herself.
Putin: Russia may have to make Ukraine deal one day, but partners cheated in the past
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia would likely have to reach agreements regarding Ukraine in the future, but felt betrayed by the breakdown of the Minsk agreements.
Last press conference just before the war. He made did absolutely clear that their actions to invade or not depends on "Russian security guarantee and eastward expnasion of Nato is unnacceptable."
He gave plenty of warning. If a person only sees via "Putin Bad glasses" just like "orange man bad glasses" there is no point to have a rationale debate with that person.
NATO is a defensive organisation. It does not actively recruit. Independent and sovereign countries themselves have to formally ask / apply to join if they feel it's in their best interests. Since it is a defensive organisation among the first questions that will be asked is the applicant currently involved in any territorial disputes? If the answer is yes then the application is declined. If the answer is no then the application can progress subject to meeting the approval of all 30 NATO members. They all have a veto and the choice to use it and is well documented.
In order to assess what happened before we can look at what's happened since the war started.
Since the war stated both Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO. ( note Putin doesn't seem to mind or has mentioned little of the fact that NATO will be directly along his 1300+km border and since he is not invading or sabre rattling here it couldn't be that much of a threat ). Box ticked the application formally starts the process of joining NATO.
Next question - Are the applicants currently involved in any territorial disputes? The answer is no so things can progress. Box ticked and meeting approval.
Do the applicants have approval from all other 30 NATO members? The answer is no. Turkey has chosen rightly or wrongly to exercise its veto thus preventing membership. Box unticked not meeting approval. Interestingly Turkey has also prevented Cyprus from joining NATO using its veto for many many years
Process stopped indefinitely.
Before the war stated Ukraine had not applied to join NATO. Since there is no application the formal process of joining NATO cannot be started. Box unticked and no such application to unapprove but........ let's skip this step anyway to humour Razi sympathisers.
Next question - Are the applicants currently involved in any territorial disputes? The answer is yes since there was an on going war / hostilities in the Donbas region. Things could not progress. Box unticked and application would be unapproved but......... let's skip this step anyway to humour Razi sympathisers.
Does the applicant have approval from all 30 NATO members? The answer is no so things cannot progress. Box unticked and application would be unapproved but......... let's not skip this step anyway to humour Razi / Nazi sympathisers as this was the biggest ace in Putins pack. NATO members including but not necessarily Hungary have a veto and can choose rightly or wrongly to exercise it. Using diplomacy, a quick and easy phone from Putin to his bumchum in Budapest would.........
Stop the process indefinitely.
This didn't need to happen but Putin and his gas station gangsters decided otherwise
There's 4 things certain in life. Birth, death, taxes and Putin pissing down your back telling you its raining. Personally I'm not into watersports
Member countries
Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia
NATO: Turkey refuses to lift veto on Sweden's membership application
Block comes after Swedish court refused to extradite a journalist wanted by Turkey
www.euronews.com
Ukraine applies for Nato membership after Russia annexes territory
Volodymyr Zelenskiy dismisses Moscow ceremony as a farce and rules out negotiations with Putin
www.theguardian.com
Last edited:
Griswalduk
Known around here
From Zelenskyy''s visit to UK today.
Meanwhile Putin's wet stock is trying his best. He'll get there eventually
Meanwhile Putin's wet stock is trying his best. He'll get there eventually
Details in thread