JFK Assassination Forum
Off Topic => News - Off Topic - Weird & Wacky => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on March 22, 2022, 12:57:21 PM
-
Colors of Blue and Gold
I will believe in Bigfoot, the Roswell incident and that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, before I believe that the cosmonauts were not honoring Ukraine by wearing blue and gold. They could not have been oblivious about the events in Ukraine, about Ukrainian national colors. And no one at the Russian space center mentioned their spacesuit choice as the entered their spacecraft.
The decision by US Space Foundation to strike Yuri Gagarin’s name needs to be reviewed, now. They should honor courage. Both that of Yuri Gagarin, and that of his worthy successors.
And while the Russians still occupy a part of the Ukraine, blue and gold soars high about the loftiest Russian fighter.
-
Happy to see Ukraine taking back sections of their country!
-
I like how the Russians explained in April that the retreat from Kyiv was all part of the plan, since the assault on Kyiv was just a diversion from the main assaults. And now the retreat from the kharkiv area in September was all part of the plan all along, to concentrate troops in the more critical areas.
It's like the following (mythical, of course) announcements of the Germans in World War II.
July 3, 1942: Huge breakthrough, Don river has been crossed and drives going far forward to take the Caucasus and cut off the Volga river to all traffic, a critical supply line for the Russians. All according to the Fuhrer's plan.
August 30, 1942: Volga boat traffic in now under artillery fire and Stalingrad has been entered. Soon, Stalin's city will be captured. All according to the Fuhrer's plan.
October 25, 1942: The taking of Stalingrad has been delayed, in order to draw in more Russian troops across the Volga river to insure their destruction, all according to the Fuhrer's plan.
November 27, 1942: German Sixth army is concentrating on Stalingrad itself to drawn in more Russian troops upon the city where they will be destroyed. The Sixth army can easily be supplied from air so there is no cause for alarm on that point. It is all according to the Fuhrer's plan.
February 3, 1943: 90,000 German troops are now being dispersed deep into the Russian rear areas to act as a Fifth column behind Russia's front line. It is all in accord with the Fuhrer's plan.
-
We are now around $60 billion spent and counting with no end in sight in Ukraine. The US supposedly undermined a proposed settlement between Ukraine and Russia a few months ago that would have brought an end to the war. Ukraine would have agreed not to enter NATO and Russia would have withdrawn its forces. But the folks in DC - both republicans and dems - never want this to end. Like Afghanistan, they want to milk it for as long as possible. They sold some gullible types a bill of goods that Ukraine was a "democracy" and was Russia "bad." Imagine liberals who once protested wars being the largest advocates for American involvement in this conflict. Unreal. Russia is certainly in the wrong but there is no American interest at stake. The radical libs transferred their obsessive hatred of Trump to Putin and have edged the world as close to WWIII as any time in history. If it turns out that the US or its allies destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, that is an act of war against Russia. Not assistance to Ukraine. The Russians will certainly retaliate in some dangerous manner and who knows what happens then. This is exactly what happens when the corrupt political establishment makes decisions.
-
We are now around $60 billion spent and counting with no end in sight in Ukraine. The US supposedly undermined a proposed settlement between Ukraine and Russia a few months ago that would have brought an end to the war. Ukraine would have agreed not to enter NATO and Russia would have withdrawn its forces. But the folks in DC - both republicans and dems - never want this to end. Like Afghanistan, they want to milk it for as long as possible. They sold some gullible types a bill of goods that Ukraine was a "democracy" and was Russia "bad." Imagine liberals who once protested wars being the largest advocates for American involvement in this conflict. Unreal. Russia is certainly in the wrong but there is no American interest at stake. The radical libs transferred their obsessive hatred of Trump to Putin and have edged the world as close to WWIII as any time in history. If it turns out that the US or its allies destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, that is an act of war against Russia. Not assistance to Ukraine. The Russians will certainly retaliate in some dangerous manner and who knows what happens then. This is exactly what happens when the corrupt political establishment makes decisions.
Worried about the expenditure of 60 billion? You didn't seem too worried over the last few months, with Ukraine just able to hold on. It is only with the recent Ukraine successes that you start to worry and revisit this issue. 60 billion dollars? What's my share of this. About $ 200. I am more than willing to spend $ 400 of my money per year to hold off Russia from overrunning Europe. Unlike the $ 145 billion we spent in Afghanistan, our money spent in Ukraine is clearly being put to good use. It is not money wasted.
This isn't about Ukraine. This is about mainland Europe. If threatening to use nuclear bombs works against Ukraine, Russia will now have its formula to keep advancing west. Should we risk nuclear war just over parts of Ukraine? Should we risk nuclear war just for all of Ukraine? Should we risk nuclear war just for the Baltic states? Should we risk nuclear war just for Poland? There is no end of this short of the Rhine River.
Make no mistake, this isn't just over parts of Ukraine, or all of Ukraine. It is, at a minimum, for most of Europe, right up to the Rhine River. Presumably, France and Britain, with their nuclear weapons would be safe. But maybe not. Russia could say they have a lot more weapons, with a lot more territory to spread out in. Move millions of people into Russia cities and say "Do you want to kill them as well? Better to give into us now as you have done before".
I think the nuclear threat is an empty threat. If Putin gives the order, it will likely be his last order. He would be killed on the spot.
On the other hand, giving in now will only prolong our problems and make them worst. If we do toughen our policies in the future and resolve to make a real stand in the Baltics, the Russians won't believe it. They will think that we crumpled before, just from the threat of nuclear weapons. With a real demonstration with real nuclear weapons within the Baltic States, surely now we will back down once again.
In 1938, reasonable men backed down from unreasonable men. We saw how well that worked. It would be the height of stupidity to think it would work any different now.
Democrats do want it to end. With Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and the war ending. And I think it will likely happen. Putin appears determined but Russia on the whole does not appear to be determined. Determination does matter. Many a larger state has lost to a more determined smaller state. This looks like a classic example. How will ill-equipped Russian soldiers hold up in the coming winter? Equipped Russian soldiers have handled winter warfare well. With poor equipment, with their government skimming on all sorts of equipment, including, I presume, winter clothing, we will see. They can't just huddle inside all the time during the winter like they can during peace. Not if they expect to hold off the Ukrainians. Which seems hard enough with warmer weather.
We spent 145 billion for Afghanistan. Surely Europe is worth a lot more than that.
I think that MAGA Republicans wouldn't mind spending 60 billion, if we can spend it helping the Russians. They want dictatorships to spread, over America and around the world.
-
We've been sold a bill of goods again by the same DC warmongers. Vietnam - stopping Communism. Afghanistan - nation building. Iraq - weapons of mass destruction. How did all those work out. Just great for the Cheney's but no one else. Ukraine is another disaster. Billions will be spent. There is already mission creep. No end in sight. When all is said and done, the US will pay to rebuild the place while Europe laughs. We are still paying Europe for the privilege of defending them. They must pinch themselves.
-
The war continues to escalate on Old Joe's watch with no end in sight. No effort to find a settlement. Instead it's all about sending more and more weapons to extend the war at the cost of billions to the US taxpayer. When all is said and done Ukraine will be a smoldering ruin with enormous loss of life. And that's the best-case scenario. Old Joe and his gang of incompetents might very well bungle this into WWIII over a region that most Americans couldn't find on a map and have never heard of. The US has used the war as a pretext for regime change in Russia. The goal is to mire Russia in an endless conflict until Putin is overthrown. An incredibly dangerous strategy.
-
The war continues to escalate on Old Joe's watch with no end in sight. No effort to find a settlement. Instead it's all about sending more and more weapons to extend the war at the cost of billions to the US taxpayer. When all is said and done Ukraine will be a smoldering ruin with enormous loss of life. And that's the best-case scenario. Old Joe and his gang of incompetents might very well bungle this into WWIII over a region that most Americans couldn't find on a map and have never heard of. The US has used the war as a pretext for regime change in Russia. The goal is to mire Russia in an endless conflict until Putin is overthrown. An incredibly dangerous strategy.
It's not wasted money. Just like Hitler, Putin needs to be stopped. And sending weapons to Ukraine seems to be a very cost effective way to do it. Yes, it costs money to stop Putin. Just like it cost money to stop Hitler. But it needs to be done.
In the long run, Ukraine will be better off suffering the war damage, than living under the boot of Russia. There is no hope for them if that happens. And adding Ukraine to Russia will only give them more resources, more draftees, and make Russia an even bigger threat to Europe and the world.
And so far you have dodged my question.
Why did the recent reverses on the battlefield for Russia spur you to start complaining about our expenditures. You were pretty silent during the months of stalemate. Is it possible you are more concerned about Russia failing than our spending money?
-
It's not wasted money. Just like Hitler, Putin needs to be stopped. And sending weapons to Ukraine seems to be a very cost effective way to do it. Yes, it costs money to stop Putin. Just like it cost money to stop Hitler. But it needs to be done.
In the long run, Ukraine will be better off suffering the war damage, than living under the boot of Russia. There is no hope for them if that happens. And adding Ukraine to Russia will only give them more resources, more draftees, and make Russia an even bigger threat to Europe and the world.
And so far you have dodged my question.
Why did the recent reverses on the battlefield for Russia spur you to start complaining about our expenditures. You were pretty silent during the months of stalemate. Is it possible you are more concerned about Russia failing than our spending money?
The US has no vested interest in this conflict. The Russians are in the wrong but that doesn't justify an endless commitment of US taxpayer funds to this conflict. There are conflicts and wrongs committed in many places around the world in which the US does not intervene because we have no vested interest. You have been sold a bill of good from the same warmongers who brought us Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Endless foreign war for no purpose. Ukraine has suffered far more by the focus on escalation than resolution of this conflict. There is no end in sight. What is the end game here? The areas occupied by Russia have many citizens that prefer Russian rule over Ukranian. They have been fighting the Ukranians for independence for years in these regions. The DC warmongers want such a conflict to extend for years. It is their ticket to spend money - billions. That money gets cycled through industries that kickback contributions to the politicians. Republicans are as much as fault as anyone. There was a time when leftists were on to this trick and opposed such wars. Sadly, those days are over. Leftists have abandoned anti-war and pro-freedom of speech for power.
-
The US has no vested interest in this conflict.
Yes we do. It's not just a part of Ukraine that's at stake. It's not just all of Ukraine that's at stake. It's at least all of Europe up to the Rhine River.
He have as much at stake against Putin as we did against Hitler.
The Russians are in the wrong but that doesn't justify an endless commitment of US taxpayer funds to this conflict. There are conflicts and wrongs committed in many places around the world in which the US does not intervene because we have no vested interest. You have been sold a bill of good from the same warmongers who brought us Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Endless foreign war for no purpose. Ukraine has suffered far more by the focus on escalation than resolution of this conflict. There is no end in sight. What is the end game here? The areas occupied by Russia have many citizens that prefer Russian rule over Ukranian. They have been fighting the Ukranians for independence for years in these regions. The DC warmongers want such a conflict to extend for years. It is their ticket to spend money - billions. That money gets cycled through industries that kickback contributions to the politicians. Republicans are as much as fault as anyone. There was a time when leftists were on to this trick and opposed such wars. Sadly, those days are over. Leftists have abandoned anti-war and pro-freedom of speech for power.
Not much at stake in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. But Ukraine is a different matter.
And our expenditures are not huge. Far less than that spent on Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or Iraq. Far less than that spent against Hitler's Germany. Naturally, stopping Russia is going to take some money. Your not going to have it done for 13.5 million dollars. But for much less money spent on Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, we can make a big different.
If we don't do this, we are in big trouble. With success in Ukraine, the next dictator of Russia will likely want his own special accomplishment, like the Baltics. And so it goes. And next time, be a lot more dangerous. If the mere threat of nuclear weapons is enough to cause the West to back down, how could a real demonstration fail? And China will take encouragement with regards to Taiwan. And North Korea has nuclear weapons as well. How could they not be encouraged if we back down now?
You should make it clear that you don't think Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, Germany, The Low Countries, Taiwan and South Korea are worth spending a few billion dollars a month. Maybe you are right. But you should make yourself clear. The U. S. military budget is something like 773 billion a year. If Russia is beaten, I think this amount could be reduced in the coming years. I see spending a small fraction of this on Ukraine now is a good investment. Yes, there is no guarantee this will stop Russia. There are no guarantees in war. But if this works, we could save a 100 billion or more each year, I should think, if the threat from Russia is reduced. But if we emboldened Russia, China and South Korea, we could never spend enough to make up for that.
Let's keep going a few more months and see how the under equipped Russians hold out in the winter. The under equipped Russians did not do so well in the winter of 1939-1940 in Finland and the same may be true in the coming months. Russians are not immune to the cold, not when dressed and fed poorly. Maybe the issue will be largely decided before a new Congress comes in at the end of January. We will see.
-
MAGA Republicans say that we should not get involved in stopping tyranny from spreading abroad. We should concentrate on America. If they were sincere they would also urge us to vote Democratic. To stop the spread of Authoritarianism in America.
The truth is that MAGA Republicans are no more concerned about the spread of Authoritarianism in America than they are over it's spread in Europe. Deep down, they see the spread of Authoritarianism as a good thing. If Putin succeeds, it is a good omen. It may mean that Authoritarianism is unstoppable. It may mean that Trump is unstoppable. They betray this in many ways, like Trump praising Putin on many occasions. He really wants Putin to succeed. And also in their calls to stop spending on Ukraine. Particularly right after Ukraine successes on the battlefield.
The Russians have spent more on equipping the Ukrainians with weapons than we have. In the form of weapons captured on the battlefield by the Ukrainians. It would not be a bad thing if we were to become as 'generous' as the Russians when it comes to equipping the Ukrainians. But I'm not asking for that. Just to maintain the level we are spending now.
The money we have spent on Ukraine is a fraction of the money we spend each year on defense. I say it is a good investment, unlike the much larger sums spent on Afghanistan and Iraq. We should stop spending money reinforcing failure and start spending it on supporting success, for a people committed to democracy. I say we should spend it on Ukraine.
The next few months are critical. Let's see if the ill equipped Russians will freeze in the winter, just like the ill equipped Russians did in the Winter War against Finland in 1939-1940. Sure, the Russians can, and have, do what the Germans did in 1941, steal from the civilians. But there is only so much food in the sliver of Ukraine territory that they occupy. This territory cannot produce an unlimited amount of food. Sooner or later the Russians, without enough food supplies from Russia, will either have to advance into new territory, or fall back into Russia, or starve. Let's see what the next few months bring.
-
MAGA Republicans say that we should not get involved in stopping tyranny from spreading abroad. We should concentrate on America. If they were sincere they would also urge us to vote Democratic. To stop the spread of Authoritarianism in America.
The truth is that MAGA Republicans are no more concerned about the spread of Authoritarianism in America than they are over it's spread in Europe. Deep down, they see the spread of Authoritarianism as a good thing. If Putin succeeds, it is a good omen. It may mean that Authoritarianism is unstoppable. It may mean that Trump is unstoppable. They betray this in many ways, like Trump praising Putin on many occasions. He really wants Putin to succeed. And also in their calls to stop spending on Ukraine. Particularly right after Ukraine successes on the battlefield.
The Russians have spent more on equipping the Ukrainians with weapons than we have. In the form of weapons captured on the battlefield by the Ukrainians. It would not be a bad thing if we were to become as 'generous' as the Russians when it comes to equipping the Ukrainians. But I'm not asking for that. Just to maintain the level we are spending now.
The money we have spent on Ukraine is a fraction of the money we spend each year on defense. I say it is a good investment, unlike the much larger sums spent on Afghanistan and Iraq. We should stop spending money reinforcing failure and start spending it on supporting success, for a people committed to democracy. I say we should spend it on Ukraine.
The next few months are critical. Let's see if the ill equipped Russians will freeze in the winter, just like the ill equipped Russians did in the Winter War against Finland in 1939-1940. Sure, the Russians can, and have, do what the Germans did in 1941, steal from the civilians. But there is only so much food in the sliver of Ukraine territory that they occupy. This territory cannot produce an unlimited amount of food. Sooner or later the Russians, without enough food supplies from Russia, will either have to advance into new territory, or fall back into Russia, or starve. Let's see what the next few months bring.
Who has locked up political opponents and ended free speech in this country with Stasi-like efficiency? It's not the Republicans. How are the poll numbers looking for Dems who have controlled the WH and Congress for the last two years? Most Americans couldn't find Ukraine on a map. They are more concerned with the war zone in their own cities in which hundreds are being shot every weekend. Fifty this last weekend in Chicago alone. It's safer in Ukraine than any major US city. How many billions are the corrupt establishment sending to the address this American problem? How is that conspiracy perpetuated by Old Joe and Stacey Abrams working in Georgia where they railed about Jim Crow voter suppression laws? The last report is that there is a 150% INCREASE in early voting in this midterm election. Where are the apologies for these lies after they have been proven demonstrably false? Russian collusion, Hunter's laptop the product of Russian disinformation, Jim Crow 2.0? Where is the apology about things going well in Afghanistan for 20 years? Years from now after Ukraine is a smoldering ruin, we will be asked to pay to rebuild it. Nothing will be gained from trillions spent and that is assuming that Old Joe and his cast of incompetents hired based on race and gender haven't managed to bungle this into WWIII.
-
Yes we do. It's not just a part of Ukraine that's at stake. It's not just all of Ukraine that's at stake. It's at least all of Europe up to the Rhine River.
He have as much at stake against Putin as we did against Hitler.
Not much at stake in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. But Ukraine is a different matter.
There is nothing at stake. How much money are Mexico, Iceland, Chile sending to Ukraine? Zero. It's always the US that gets drawn into these endless foreign conflicts and fronts the trillions of dollars. Why do we rush to be the caretaker of the world? It's not because the US is protecting its interest or has any altruist motive that other countries do not. Our corrupt politicians have figured out it is a great way to funnel money to their cronies who keep them in office. A vicious cycle. They lied about progress in Afghanistan for two decades to keep the money flowing, panicked when that came to an end, but created a new fake cause to turn the money back on in Ukraine.
The historic parallel in Ukraine is not Hitler but WWI. WWI began when countries were drawn into war through alliances that began with a regional conflict in which none of the major players had any real interest. That is exactly what is happening in the Ukraine. The US and many other countries are being drawn into a regional conflict that could quickly escalate to a global conflict.
-
We are stuck in a quagmire. A stalemate between Russia and Ukraine that will go on and on.
Reality Check:
Ukraine has just retaken Kherson.
Last month Russia claimed it now owns four Oblasts formerly belonging to Ukraine. An Oblast is a region of Ukraine, sort of equivalent to a U. S. state. However, Russia only occupied parts of these Oblasts. And only one administrative center (like a state capitol), Kherson. And now they occupy zero administrative centers.
Kherson was the largest city Russia was able to take. And now it no longer has it.
Since Ukraine started its counter offensive earlier this year, they have retaken 50 per cent, 50 per cent of the territory Russia seized in the late winter and early spring of this year.
This is like no stalemate I have ever heard of in history. And typically, when a nation reverses the tide, it doesn't take as much time to regain the second half as it's territory as it took to regain the first. And I don't think this time is going to be an exception.
Unenthusiastic draftees, without training, told to bring their own winter clothes, which are stolen from them when they report for duty. And winter is coming. These 300,000 fellows are going to be the ones who stop the victorious Ukraine army in it's tracks? I don't think so. The Spartan 300 had better odds.
Stranger. Go tell the Russians that obedient to Putin's will, we lie here. And the sooner Putin joins us the better off Russia will be.
-
We are stuck in a quagmire. A stalemate between Russia and Ukraine that will go on and on.
Reality Check:
Ukraine has just retaken Kherson.
Last month Russia claimed it now owns four Oblasts formerly belonging to Ukraine. An Oblast is a region of Ukraine, sort of equivalent to a U. S. state. However, Russia only occupied parts of these Oblasts. And only one administrative center (like a state capitol), Kherson. And now they occupy zero administrative centers.
Kherson was the largest city Russia was able to take. And now it no longer has it.
Since Ukraine started its counter offensive earlier this year, they have retaken 50 per cent, 50 per cent of the territory Russia seized in the late winter and early spring of this year.
This is like no stalemate I have ever heard of in history. And typically, when a nation reverses the tide, it doesn't take as much time to regain the second half as it's territory as it took to regain the first. And I don't think this time is going to be an exception.
Unenthusiastic draftees, without training, told to bring their own winter clothes, which are stolen from them when they report for duty. And winter is coming. These 300,000 fellows are going to be the ones who stop the victorious Ukraine army in it's tracks? I don't think so. The Spartan 300 had better odds.
Stranger. Go tell the Russians that obedient to Putin's will, we lie here. And the sooner Putin joins us the better off Russia will be.
The conflict in these regions has been going on for decades. In some cases, much longer. It would continue even if the Russians left 100% of the occupied areas. That is because much of the population in those areas are pro-Russian. They were fighting for independence from Ukraine even before the Russians intervened. The comic book narrative provided by the US media is just an extension of the "war on democracy" narrative that they used against Trump. The leftist support this endless war because it can be used to further their anti-Trump narrative that there is a struggle going on for democracy. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe ruled by oligarchs. Ironically, very similar to the US. There is a long and complex history that extends beyond concluding Ukraine "good" and Russia "bad." Superficial understanding of these regional conflicts was a recipe for disaster in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is being repeated again. Just sending lots of bombs to destroy the country and kill a lot of people will not promote democracy.
-
The conflict in these regions has been going on for decades. In some cases, much longer. It would continue even if the Russians left 100% of the occupied areas. That is because much of the population in those areas are pro-Russian. They were fighting for independence from Ukraine even before the Russians intervened. The comic book narrative provided by the US media is just an extension of the "war on democracy" narrative that they used against Trump. The leftist support this endless war because it can be used to further their anti-Trump narrative that there is a struggle going on for democracy. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe ruled by oligarchs. Ironically, very similar to the US. There is a long and complex history that extends beyond concluding Ukraine "good" and Russia "bad." Superficial understanding of these regional conflicts was a recipe for disaster in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is being repeated again. Just sending lots of bombs to destroy the country and kill a lot of people will not promote democracy.
The Ukrainians aren't destroying a country. Russia is the one trying to do so.
Question:
How are your arguments fundamentally different than the arguments made by the "America Firsters" of the 1930's and early 1940's. They argued that sending military aid aboard won't help defend Democracy.
But they were wrong. Just as you are wrong.
As usual, just like CTers often do, you will most likely dodge my only question.
Sending lots of military aid to a people who support Democracy has promoted Democracy. In the right circumstances. When the people under siege support Democracy. The aid sent to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan allowed peoples who wanted to establish Democracy to establish it. And Democracy still stands there to this day. In France, Belgian, Denmark, etc. and even including Germany and Japan. Because even Germany and Japan were not totally filled with Nazis and Military fanatics. Both countries had tried Democracy and had millions who wanted to give it another go.
In contrast, spending on Afghanistan and Iraq is pouring money into a black hole because the people of those countries, for the most part, do not and never had supported Democracy.
Does Ukraine really contain powerful people who want to destroy the newly establish Democracy of Ukraine? It sure does. Some of them want to become the Putin, or the Trump, of Ukraine, or to serve such a man, and be rewarded. But the people of Ukraine, who, if successful against Putin, will succeed against these lesser Putins. Just as the people in France, Belgian, Denmark, etc. who after the World War II managed to defeat the dictator want-a-be in their countries. The people of Ukraine deserves this chance. And I'm betting on them, both during this war, and the coming internal war afterwards.
-
The Ukrainians aren't destroying a country. Russia is the one trying to do so.
Question:
How are your arguments fundamentally different than the arguments made by the "America Firsters" of the 1930's and early 1940's. They argued that sending military aid aboard won't help defend Democracy.
But they were wrong. Just as you are wrong.
As usual, just like CTers often do, you will most likely dodge my only question.
Sending lots of military aid to a people who support Democracy has promoted Democracy. In the right circumstances. When the people under siege support Democracy. The aid sent to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan allowed peoples who wanted to establish Democracy to establish it. And Democracy still stands there to this day. In France, Belgian, Denmark, etc. and even including Germany and Japan. Because even Germany and Japan were not totally filled with Nazis and Military fanatics. Both countries had tried Democracy and had millions who wanted to give it another go.
In contrast, spending on Afghanistan and Iraq is pouring money into a black hole because the people of those countries, for the most part, do not and never had supported Democracy.
Does Ukraine really contain powerful people who want to destroy the newly establish Democracy of Ukraine? It sure does. Some of them want to become the Putin, or the Trump, of Ukraine, or to serve such a man, and be rewarded. But the people of Ukraine, who, if successful against Putin, will succeed against these lesser Putins. Just as the people in France, Belgian, Denmark, etc. who after the World War II managed to defeat the dictator want-a-be in their countries. The people of Ukraine deserves this chance. And I'm betting on them, both during this war, and the coming internal war afterwards.
There are conflicts going on all over the world that the US does not involve itself in. Ukraine is a situation in which the politicians contrived a narrative to promote support for involvement (as they did to justify decades of war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) to justify the expenditure of billions in taxpayer dollars. The narrative is an extension of the fake "war on democracy" claim by anti-Trump establishment politicians (both republicans and dems). This desired narrative is vague (somehow and for some unknown reason democracy is threatened). It is laughable but enough to convince those that want to be convinced (i.e. the anti-Trump conspiracy theorists who bought "Russian collusion"). There is no direct US interest in this conflict. In fact, the US economy has suffered greatly. More than the Russian economy. Getting all your information from You Tube and the US state armed sponsored propaganda arms like CNN and MSNBC is no more reliable than Russian propaganda. In fact, it is often worse. This is like a made for Disney version of American history. Where do you think the US bombs and weapons are being used? The war is in Ukraine. They are being dropped on Ukrainian cities, buildings, people etc. Do you think CNN publicizes the events in which Ukrainian citizens are killed by American bombs?
-
Excellent article on whether we should force Ukraine to negotiate a peace treaty with Russia, without retaking all the lands Russia stole from Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.
Have we forgotten what motivates Putin’s Russia?
The Hill
Opinion by W. Robert Pearson, Opinion Contributor - 3h ago
Tuesday, November 15, 2022
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/have-we-forgotten-what-motivates-putin-s-russia/ar-AA149dog?ocid=a2hs&cvid=0e9c89a663c64bebab8939fce1f4e587
Points made by the author:
Have we forgotten:
Has it been forgotten that Russia promised to recognize the independence of the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994?
Have they forgotten that after the United States made clear in 2013 that it would not intervene in Syria, Russian forces arrived in 2015 and aided in the slaughter of thousands, deliberately bombed hospitals and deliberately created a Syrian refugee crisis?
Have they forgotten that Vladimir Putin in 2007 in Munich targeted NATO as an aggressor for accepting the free choices of former Warsaw Pact nations to join the alliance and renew their democratic journeys?
Have they forgotten that Putin has explicitly targeted all the former Warsaw Pact states, plus the independent countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — all current NATO members — as destined for reincorporation into the Russian sphere?
Have they forgotten that the multiple failures to act in the past have led inexorably to the decision by Russia to invade Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022?
Which of these points made by the author are false?
Russia is at least as aggressive as Nazi Germany in the 1930's. We have the same pattern.
Promise not to invade Austria. Demand to take over all of Austria. This will be Germany's last demand. Takes over Austria.
Demand to take over just part of Czechoslovakia. Gets the west to agree in return for a promise not to demand any more land. Takes over the part of Czechoslovakia agreed upon. Then takes over all of Czechoslovakia.
Demand to take over a part of Poland. England and France got plunged into a war because Germany could not believe that England and France wouldn't back down. Who could blame Germany for thinking this?
etc.
How is this different than Russia with it's promises, broken promises and invasions of Ukraine and other countries?
What should be done?
I'm not arguing we should definitely support Ukraine. After all, the danger of Nuclear War if pretty severe. What I am arguing, for now, that it's not just a part of Ukraine, or all of Ukraine that is at stake. It's all of Europe. Russia has said repeatedly over the years that Ukraine should be absorbed by Russia. And it has said the same about the Baltic States, Poland and all the former Warsaw Pact nations, which also means Germany, or at least a large part of Germany. It repeatedly invades, takes a chunk of land, promises not to take any more in the future, then takes another large chunk a few years later.
If we back down supporting Ukraine, Russia is going to think we did so, merely from the threat of using Nuclear weapons. So when it comes back for the rest of Ukraine, or the Baltic States, if we decide to make a firm stand then, they are liable to think "The threat of a nuclear attack was enough to scare them off then. Surely a real nuclear bomb over the Black Sea or the Baltic will cause them to cave again.
Right now, the have the perfect situation. It will never get any better:
1. Russia's army and air force are at their weakest. Much more incompetent than in the 1980's.
2. We have a brave people putting up great resistance against Russia, even driving them back, and likely to continue to do so if we continue to support them.
If we back down now, Russia will be convinced we will always back down. Other people will find it hard to find the courage the Ukrainians have shown when it will be all for naught because the West will always back down. If we decide to back down now but to make a determine stand later, it will be a lot more expensive, and much more likely to face the use of real nuclear weapons, not just the threat.
If a stand is going to be made, the earlier the better. Defeating an aggressive Germany in 1936 would have been done at a small fraction of cost of doing so in 1939. And it encouraged Russia to follow Germany's example. Just as backing down now will likely encourage China to follow Russia's example.
Also, while we have spent a lot on Ukraine, it is just a fraction of what we spend for our own defense. What happens to most of our equipment spent on our defense? It gets used in more questionable minor wars. Or never gets used and eventually mothballed and then discarded. Every dollar spent on Ukraine is used very effectively, stopping Russia from taking over Europe. A much more worth while goal than any war we have fought since the Korea War.
And at what cost in American casualties? Let me get out my spreadsheet. Ah, yes, zero.
Should we instead spend money on our southern wall? Well the wall that Trump built seems to work pretty well. About as well as the Maginot Line worked for France in 1940. Perhaps we should continue to spend more on it. Although I don't know why? It doesn't seem to be much of an invasion. I never heard of Hispanics launching an assault against our Capitol or doing anything else to betray American Principals. They just seem to come in, learn English, work hard and adopt American values. But I don't know. I suppose a Southern Wall might prevent the darkening of Americans complexion over the coming century so that might be a good argument for it. :)
What I want:
At a minimum, I want everyone to realize that what's at stake is not part of Ukraine, or all of Ukraine, but all of mainland Europe and possibly other places like Taiwan. If we don't make a stand now it will be much more dangerous to make a stand later. If we should back down than we should back down. But people should understand what the total price will likely be. Russia has not shown a tendency to threaten invading a country but never following through. They will be coming for the rest later. So if all of Europe and Taiwan and South Korea is not worth it, maybe we should back down. But let us understand the true cost.
So, our two best options:
1. Make a determined stand now.
2. Give up on Ukraine and let Russia take some of the land it took in 2014 and 2022. And let Russia take the rest of Ukraine and Europe in the coming years.
Our worse option:
3. Give up on Ukraine now, but make a determine stand when Russia comes for the Baltic States.
Finally, here is Mr. Pearson's last paragraph:
The Ukrainians are winning battles in this war. With enough help, they plan to enjoy further successes. In 1776, Thomas Paine famously fingered the “summer soldier and sunshine patriots” ready to abandon the American independence struggle. He reminded Americans that “tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.” Now would not be the time to abandon our friends, described euphemistically by pundits as the United States “helping” Ukraine define its strategic goals. If Russia emerges from this conflict having faced down the West, the world is going to become ever more dangerous. And recall that China will be watching.
Question:
When did negotiating with tyranny work well? Worked better than standing up to it and fighting like hell, as the Ukrainians are doing?
Can someone give me a historical example?
-
Now that Ukraine has struck Poland (a NATO country) with a rocket, when will Old Joe declare war on Ukraine? Isn't that his policy to defend every inch of NATO territory? Quite a few inches and a couple of people were blown to pieces in Poland.
-
Biden and NATO are claiming that the missile that hit Poland was not fired by Russia. President Zelensky, however, is insisting that Ukraine did not fire the missile. Either Biden is lying to avoid WWIII or Zelinsky is lying in an attempt to escalate the war by drawing NATO into the conflict. It's astounding either way. Imagine after giving Ukraine billions of dollars in aid they are now lying in an attempt to draw the US into a war with Russia. And no one in the media cares. If Trump were President in this situation, they would be going ballistic.
-
Biden and NATO are claiming that the missile that hit Poland was not fired by Russia. President Zelensky, however, is insisting that Ukraine did not fire the missile. Either Biden is lying to avoid WWIII or Zelinsky is lying in an attempt to escalate the war by drawing NATO into the conflict. It's astounding either way. Imagine after giving Ukraine billions of dollars in aid they are now lying in an attempt to draw the US into a war with Russia. And no one in the media cares. If Trump were President in this situation, they would be going ballistic.
Either Biden is lying or Zelenskyy is lying. Or neither is lying because it's hard to tell. Both Russians and Ukrainians use a lot of Soviet weapons.
If it was Ukraine it is no big deal. Everyone understands that Ukraine has nothing against Poland. It would clearly be a missile which they tried to knock down a Russian missile or drone. As long as Russia keeps insisting on attacking Ukraine, under the desperate illusion that one more day of missile attack will break Ukraine's will, accidents will happen from time to time. The U. S. Army Air Force bombed Switzerland from time to time because accidents do happen in war. This did not result in a war between the United States and Switzerland.
-
Either Biden is lying or Zelenskyy is lying. Or neither is lying because it's hard to tell. Both Russians and Ukrainians use a lot of Soviet weapons.
If it was Ukraine it is no big deal. Everyone understands that Ukraine has nothing against Poland. It would clearly be a missile which they tried to knock down a Russian missile or drone. As long as Russia keeps insisting on attacking Ukraine, under the desperate illusion that one more day of missile attack will break Ukraine's will, accidents will happen from time to time. The U. S. Army Air Force bombed Switzerland from time to time because accidents do happen in war. This did not result in a war between the United States and Switzerland.
WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal. The Ukranians intentionally lied about the missile in an effort to escalate their regional conflict into a war between NATO and Russia. The remnants of the missile were found. They have been identified as the type being used only by Ukraine. No one suggested they intentionally attacked Poland. What they did was fire a missile that landed in Poland killing people and then lied about it to blame Russia in an attempt to force the US and NATO to join the conflict starting WWIII. This demonstrates that the Ukranians are willing to falsify information in an effort to start WWIII. Incredibly dangerous and exposes Ukraine as a corrupt country willing to do and say anything to escalate this war. It's astounding that anyone would attempt to excuse this behavior. The US taxpayers have already paid TWICE the annual amount that we were paying to stay in Afghanistan. Three times the entire military budget of Russia has been spent in Ukraine with no end in sight. The Ukranians desperately want a war between the US and Russia. They will say or do anything for that objective. Zelensky continued to lie and insist it was a Russian missile even after the US presented him with evidence to the contrary. Every bit of information coming from our media out of Ukraine should be suspect.
-
WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal. The Ukranians intentionally lied about the missile in an effort to escalate their regional conflict into a war between NATO and Russia. The remnants of the missile were found. They have been identified as the type being used only by Ukraine. No one suggested they intentionally attacked Poland. What they did was fire a missile that landed in Poland killing people and then lied about it to blame Russia in an attempt to force the US and NATO to join the conflict starting WWIII. This demonstrates that the Ukranians are willing to falsify information in an effort to start WWIII. Incredibly dangerous and exposes Ukraine as a corrupt country willing to do and say anything to escalate this war. It's astounding that anyone would attempt to excuse this behavior. The US taxpayers have already paid TWICE the annual amount that we were paying to stay in Afghanistan. Three times the entire military budget of Russia has been spent in Ukraine with no end in sight. The Ukranians desperately want a war between the US and Russia. They will say or do anything for that objective. Zelensky continued to lie and insist it was a Russian missile even after the US presented him with evidence to the contrary. Every bit of information coming from our media out of Ukraine should be suspect.
WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal.
WWIII is a "big deal". But so is the Russian occupation of Europe right up to the borders of France.
If the threat of WWIII is enough for us to stand down and allow Ukraine to be occupied, why couldn't the same threat be made against:
The Baltic States?
Poland?
Germany?
The low countries?
Scandinavia?
Yes, our NATO treaty obliges us to help these other countries. But couldn't it be argued it would be better to break our treaty then to have WWIII?
Indeed, since Russia could tell France: "You don't have enough nuclear weapons to devastate all of Russia. It would be better to live under us than to die from nuclear war.",
I don't see why Russia couldn't use the same arguments against France, Great Britain, or even the United States.
Backing down from Russian doesn't make it less likely for nuclear bombs to be used. It makes it more likely, in the long run. Success will encourage Russia to not only make more threats of WWIII in the future, but if we do back down now but stand up to them later, more likely to actually use some nuclear bombs. If threats alone caused us to back down before, surely using a few nuclear bombs, not just threats, would cause us to back down in the future.
Question:
Why don't you admit that it's not just Ukraine that is at stake? It's all of Europe. And maybe more.
-
WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal.
WWIII is a "big deal". But so is the Russian occupation of Europe right up to the borders of France.
If the threat of WWIII is enough for us to stand down and allow Ukraine to be occupied, why couldn't the same threat be made against:
The Baltic States?
Poland?
Germany?
The low countries?
Scandinavia?
Yes, our NATO treaty obliges us to help these other countries. But couldn't it be argued it would be better to break our treaty then to have WWIII?
Indeed, since Russia could tell France: "You don't have enough nuclear weapons to devastate all of Russia. It would be better to live under us than to die from nuclear war.",
I don't see why Russia couldn't use the same arguments against France, Great Britain, or even the United States.
Backing down from Russian doesn't make it less likely for nuclear bombs to be used. It makes it more likely, in the long run. Success will encourage Russia to not only make more threats of WWIII in the future, but if we do back down now but stand up to them later, more likely to actually use some nuclear bombs. If threats alone caused us to back down before, surely using a few nuclear bombs, not just threats, would cause us to back down in the future.
Question:
Why don't you admit that it's not just Ukraine that is at stake? It's all of Europe. And maybe more.
The only NATO country to be attacked is Poland by Ukraine. There is zero indication that Russia intends to invade any NATO country. The difficulties that the Russians are having dealing with just Ukraine lend themselves to the conclusion that they are unable to invade any other countries. It's a dangerous premise to suggest that WWIII should be risked based on a regional conflict in which the US has no direct interest. The US taxpayers have already paid THREE times the total annual Russian military budget to finance this war.
Do you ever ask yourself why the US always involves themselves in these endless conflicts and pays for them while other countries do little or nothing? Don't you find that odd? If Europe is at risk, why aren't they carrying the burden of this war instead of the US? How long are US taxpayers going to fund this war? Will it be like Afghanistan in which the military and politicians lied for decades about the progress being made to obtain billions of dollars only to have the entire situation fall apart within a week. You have no concern about the Ukrainians lying to try to bait the US and NATO into WWIII?
-
The only NATO country to be attacked is Poland by Ukraine. There is zero indication that Russia intends to invade any NATO country. The difficulties that the Russians are having dealing with just Ukraine lend themselves to the conclusion that they are unable to invade any other countries. It's a dangerous premise to suggest that WWIII should be risked based on a regional conflict in which the US has no direct interest. The US taxpayers have already paid THREE times the total annual Russian military budget to finance this war.
Do you ever ask yourself why the US always involves themselves in these endless conflicts and pays for them while other countries do little or nothing? Don't you find that odd? If Europe is at risk, why aren't they carrying the burden of this war instead of the US? How long are US taxpayers going to fund this war? Will it be like Afghanistan in which the military and politicians lied for decades about the progress being made to obtain billions of dollars only to have the entire situation fall apart within a week. You have no concern about the Ukrainians lying to try to bait the US and NATO into WWIII?
It is false to suggest that no other country are is doing it's share. From (from November 10, 2022 data):
https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/
Yes, the U. S. has contributed far more than any other country. As is natural, since we have the world's biggest economy.
A better measure is:
Per cent of a nation's GDP, or "Gross Domestic Product"
which is, by country:
0.90 % Latvia
0.30 % Poland
0.25 % United States
0.10 % Great Britain
0.06 % Canada
0.03 % Germany
This may be a little misleading because this chart, for the U. S. shows military, financial and humanitarian aid, where I believe the figures for the other countries is just for military aid. So the total contribution, counting financial and humanitarian aid of the other countries is actually higher.
Germany's contribution being low is understandable, given their extreme dependence on energy supplies from Russia, more so than any other country. They arguably have enough to do providing heat for their homes. And their military needs to be beefed up a lot. Germany's military strength is at such a low level, they just don't have a lot of surplus they can immediately send. So much for putting one's faith in Russia's good will. Poland and Latvia are in stronger positions to help, partly because much of their military equipment is of the old Soviet style, more compatible with what Ukraine is mostly using in it's war.
And European countries, in far greater danger of direct invasion than the United States, need to start beefing up their own military, as well as sending aid to Ukraine.
It is surprising how much Poland and Latvia have contributed, given how poor those countries are, and the threat they face from Russia in the coming years. On the other hand, they are in danger of losing 100 % of their GDP if Russia overruns them so spending up to 0.9 % of aid for Ukraine is very penny foolish, but dollar wise.
And again, our military aid to Ukraine is under 10 per cent of what we spend each year on our own defense. Most of our defense expenditures over the years, does not go into doing something useful, like subtracting from Russia's offensive potential. It generally gets stored away and not used, or used in questionable wars, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ten per cent sent to Ukraine is by far the most productive, dollar for dollar, military expenditures, we have made in the last 60 plus years. It directly subtracts from Russia's offensive capabilities. These expenditures do immediate good. Much of this expenditures is in military aid that we consider obsolete but which is very useful for the Ukrainians. Yes, most Stinger Missiles are gone, but our military stopped using them or making them immediately available for our troops years ago, because we now have better and more useful options now.
-
It is false to suggest that no other country are is doing it's share. From (from November 10, 2022 data):
https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/
Yes, the U. S. has contributed far more than any other country. As is natural, since we have the world's biggest economy.
A better measure is:
Per cent of a nation's GDP, or "Gross Domestic Product"
which is, by country:
0.90 % Latvia
0.30 % Poland
0.25 % United States
0.10 % Great Britain
0.06 % Canada
0.03 % Germany
This may be a little misleading because this chart, for the U. S. shows military, financial and humanitarian aid, where I believe the figures for the other countries is just for military aid. So the total contribution, counting financial and humanitarian aid of the other countries is actually higher.
Germany's contribution being low is understandable, given their extreme dependence on energy supplies from Russia, more so than any other country. They arguably have enough to do providing heat for their homes. And their military needs to be beefed up a lot. Germany's military strength is at such a low level, they just don't have a lot of surplus they can immediately send. So much for putting one's faith in Russia's good will. Poland and Latvia are in stronger positions to help, partly because much of their military equipment is of the old Soviet style, more compatible with what Ukraine is mostly using in it's war.
And European countries, in far greater danger of direct invasion than the United States, need to start beefing up their own military, as well as sending aid to Ukraine.
It is surprising how much Poland and Latvia have contributed, given how poor those countries are, and the threat they face from Russia in the coming years. On the other hand, they are in danger of losing 100 % of their GDP if Russia overruns them so spending up to 0.9 % of aid for Ukraine is very penny foolish, but dollar wise.
And again, our military aid to Ukraine is under 10 per cent of what we spend each year on our own defense. Most of our defense expenditures over the years, does not go into doing something useful, like subtracting from Russia's offensive potential. It generally gets stored away and not used, or used in questionable wars, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ten per cent sent to Ukraine is by far the most productive, dollar for dollar, military expenditures, we have made in the last 60 plus years. It directly subtracts from Russia's offensive capabilities. These expenditures do immediate good. Much of this expenditures is in military aid that we consider obsolete but which is very useful for the Ukrainians. Yes, most Stinger Missiles are gone, but our military stopped using them or making them immediately available for our troops years ago, because we now have better and more useful options now.
Those numbers are wildly overblown since the US is also giving support to those NATO countries including paying for the privilege of defending them. Europe can afford its socialist agenda only because the US has provided the military force for its defense including paying to use the military bases in Europe used by Americans to defend Europe. As Trump pointed out numerous times, many NATO members don't even pay their small share. It is one of the greatest scams in history. The US military and contractors convince the politicians to pay trillions to defend Europe and then kickback payments to the politicians to ensure that this has continued since the end of WWII. The Europeans must fall over laughing at us. While the US has hundreds of thousands of homeless, schools that are falling down, and rampant poverty, the Europeans are able to afford a socialist utopia paid for by the US.
-
Have the Ukranians ever acknowledged that it was one of their missiles that fell into Poland killing two people? Has the US intelligence community ever confirmed who pulled off a highly sophisticated operation to blow up the Russian pipelines? Where is the leftist media when it comes to stories like this that might result in WWIII? Oh year, they have nothing to do with Trump.
-
Those numbers are wildly overblown since the US is also giving support to those NATO countries including paying for the privilege of defending them. Europe can afford its socialist agenda only because the US has provided the military force for its defense including paying to use the military bases in Europe used by Americans to defend Europe. As Trump pointed out numerous times, many NATO members don't even pay their small share. It is one of the greatest scams in history. The US military and contractors convince the politicians to pay trillions to defend Europe and then kickback payments to the politicians to ensure that this has continued since the end of WWII. The Europeans must fall over laughing at us. While the US has hundreds of thousands of homeless, schools that are falling down, and rampant poverty, the Europeans are able to afford a socialist utopia paid for by the US.
Insufficient reasons for not stopping the march of Authoritarianism while we can. Let's just do it. The iron is hot. Besides, I don't think the Russians will last the winter. Too much Russian corruption. Too much poor logistics for their army to stand during a cold winter. They had enough problems getting adequate supplies up to the front during warm weather. But we shall see.
A relatively small investment now, just ten per cent of our yearly defense spending, may greatly reduce the need for such a large amount of defense spending in the years to come. If the threat of Russia is removed, I don't see why we couldn't get away with a 20 % reduction in defense spending in the years to come. We surely won't need to spend as much to defend against China alone as we will need to continue to defend against both China and Russia. It's a good gamble.
-
Have the Ukranians ever acknowledged that it was one of their missiles that fell into Poland killing two people?
How could the Ukrainians tell if it was one of their missiles or the Russian's? They haven't been able to examine the site of the missile strike.
Not knowing the details of this case, I can still note a fact that points to the Russians. The latitude of the strike in Poland matches the latitude of the center of Kiev. And the longitude matches the longitude of Lviv. Both Kiev and Lviv are large Ukrainian cities. The match is within six miles. That's a pretty big coincidence. It could be that there were two targets, one near the center of Kiev and the other near the center of Lviv and a Russian crossed up the latitude and longitude of the targets. I think it would be interesting to find if their was any sign of a missile strike near the latitude of Lviv and the longitude of Kiev. If this occurred in some empty field or swamp, it might not be obvious.
Has the US intelligence community ever confirmed who pulled off a highly sophisticated operation to blow up the Russian pipelines? Where is the leftist media when it comes to stories like this that might result in WWIII? Oh year, they have nothing to do with Trump.
It would be hard to tell for certain. But the Russians have the motive. To put additional pressure on Germany not to continue to support Ukraine. Russian ships were observed near the location the gas leaks erupted from a few days later. Also, a pipeline to Georgia mysteriously blew up in 2006 when they sought membership in NATO. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But I don't think so.
-
Insufficient reasons for not stopping the march of Authoritarianism while we can. Let's just do it. The iron is hot. Besides, I don't think the Russians will last the winter. Too much Russian corruption. Too much poor logistics for their army to stand during a cold winter. They had enough problems getting adequate supplies up to the front during warm weather. But we shall see.
A relatively small investment now, just ten per cent of our yearly defense spending, may greatly reduce the need for such a large amount of defense spending in the years to come. If the threat of Russia is removed, I don't see why we couldn't get away with a 20 % reduction in defense spending in the years to come. We surely won't need to spend as much to defend against China alone as we will need to continue to defend against both China and Russia. It's a good gamble.
When will the Biden administration be "stopping the march of Authoritarianism" in China? The most authoritarian police state in the history of the world in which millions are enslaved or in camps. There will never be a reduction in the defense spending. If the war in Ukraine ever comes to an end, they will find a new cause to sell the rubes on to fund another war. A pattern that has continued for the last five decades. The military and its contractors need a cause (insert fighting Communism, terrorism, saving democracy) to justify their enormous budgets and profits. The war goes on for decades and ends in disaster after telling the public for decades how well it is going and we only need to stick it out a bit longer. That money is kicked backed to politicians (both repubs and dems) who ensure that one war is replaced by another. The US has been funding a foreign war continuously for almost thirty years with no end in sight. Imagine if even a fraction of that money had been spent on the homeless, education or health care. We could almost be one of those European socialist countries who can afford such luxuries because the US has paid for their national defense for the last 70 years and counting.
-
How could the Ukrainians tell if it was one of their missiles or the Russian's? They haven't been able to examine the site of the missile strike.
Not knowing the details of this case, I can still note a fact that points to the Russians. The latitude of the strike in Poland matches the latitude of the center of Kiev. And the longitude matches the longitude of Lviv. Both Kiev and Lviv are large Ukrainian cities. The match is within six miles. That's a pretty big coincidence. It could be that there were two targets, one near the center of Kiev and the other near the center of Lviv and a Russian crossed up the latitude and longitude of the targets. I think it would be interesting to find if their was any sign of a missile strike near the latitude of Lviv and the longitude of Kiev. If this occurred in some empty field or swamp, it might not be obvious.
It would be hard to tell for certain. But the Russians have the motive. To put additional pressure on Germany not to continue to support Ukraine. Russian ships were observed near the location the gas leaks erupted from a few days later. Also, a pipeline to Georgia mysteriously blew up in 2006 when they sought membership in NATO. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But I don't think so.
The US has indicated the missile was fired by Ukraine. They said that pieces of the missile were found in Poland and it is of the type being used only by Ukraine. Ukraine denies they fired this missile and were encouraging the US and NATO to declare war on Russia. These are mutually exclusive explanations. So one or the other is lying.
Your theory about the pipeline is that the Russians needed to blow up their own pipeline to stop the flow of oil? You don't think they could just stop sending it? You don't think the US and/or its allies know exactly what happened given that this had to be a sophisticated operation conducted at sea? And if it were the Russians, they would have provided that evidence. Suppose the US or its allies were behind this attack. Wouldn't that be an act of war on Russia that could precipitate WWIII. Don't you think the American public needs to know if the US is behind an attack on a sovereign nation? Instead the lead story on many cable networks has been about who attended dinner with Trump.
-
Russia Is Losing the War. Give Ukraine the Weapons to End It
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-losing-the-war-give-ukraine-the-weapons-to-end-it/ar-AA14RI2G?cvid=1af6960512f240a8aa9c119c21b8a795
This article makes a great point:
As brilliantly argued by Timothy Ash, it has only cost the U.S. 5.6% of its annual military budget to decimate Russia’s conventional armed forces. This pales compared to the trillions of dollars in military expenditures that the U.S. has invested to deal with Russia over the last 8 decades. Evidently, NATO military assistance has altered the course of the war in favor of Ukraine.
What has our 5.6 % investment (of our annual defense budget) in Ukraine gotten us? The through trashing of the Russian army. How is this not a good investment of our money?
The trashing of the Russian army is a great accomplishment. It greatly lessens the threat of Russia overrunning Europe. If Ukraine prevails, Russia will be greatly discouraged from going on similar adventures in the future. Their population may, to a certain extent, become pacifists, like the populations of Germany and Japan after World War II.
With the threat of the Russian army greatly reduced, I don't see why our defense budget could not be cut by 10 % each year., as we only concentrate the threat of China attacking Taiwan.
The threat of China is much less than that of Russia, simply because I don't think China's ambition extends beyond Taiwan. I think they just want to take everything that the old China used to control. At least, I hope that's true. In any event, reducing the threat of the Russian army should save us a great deal of money in defense spending over the coming decades.
It's funny. The same people who complain about the spending for Ukraine, are the same people who had no problem with our large defense budget over the years. I always thought we overspend on defense. I now think I was wrong. Other countries are tempted to use conventional war to get what they want. The Nuclear age has not made it impossible for an aggressor to wage conventional war to take over other countries.
Question:
Why is it the same people who are upset about our spending for Ukraine, were never bothered by the trillions we have spent on U. S. Defense?
This doesn't make sense, because our spending on Ukraine is clearly a good bet. A relatively small investment, with the possibility of huge savings in the coming years. Even if supporting Ukraine only has a 10% of success, that is, defeating Russia and reducing our defense budget by 10 % for the next 20 years, it's a great bet. Do the math.
I think the real reason, is that some people like to see the expansion of Authoritarianism, the expansion of Dictatorships. If Russia is successful, it may mean that Authoritarianism is inevitable, that Authoritarianism will eventually succeed in other places, like the United States. An appealing notion for those who support Trump.
And it is mostly people who have supported Trump who don't like our support of Ukraine, correct?
-
Russia Is Losing the War. Give Ukraine the Weapons to End It
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-is-losing-the-war-give-ukraine-the-weapons-to-end-it/ar-AA14RI2G?cvid=1af6960512f240a8aa9c119c21b8a795
This article makes a great point:
What has our 5.6 % investment (of our annual defense budget) in Ukraine gotten us? The through trashing of the Russian army. How is this not a good investment of our money?
The trashing of the Russian army is a great accomplishment. It greatly lessens the threat of Russia overrunning Europe. If Ukraine prevails, Russia will be greatly discouraged from going on similar adventures in the future. Their population may, to a certain extent, become pacifists, like the populations of Germany and Japan after World War II.
With the threat of the Russian army greatly reduced, I don't see why our defense budget could not be cut by 10 % each year., as we only concentrate the threat of China attacking Taiwan.
The threat of China is much less than that of Russia, simply because I don't think China's ambition extends beyond Taiwan. I think they just want to take everything that the old China used to control. At least, I hope that's true. In any event, reducing the threat of the Russian army should save us a great deal of money in defense spending over the coming decades.
It's funny. The same people who complain about the spending for Ukraine, are the same people who had no problem with our large defense budget over the years. I always thought we overspend on defense. I now think I was wrong. Other countries are tempted to use conventional war to get what they want. The Nuclear age has not made it impossible for an aggressor to wage conventional war to take over other countries.
Question:
Why is it the same people who are upset about our spending for Ukraine, were never bothered by the trillions we have spent on U. S. Defense?
This doesn't make sense, because our spending on Ukraine is clearly a good bet. A relatively small investment, with the possibility of huge savings in the coming years. Even if supporting Ukraine only has a 10% of success, that is, defeating Russia and reducing our defense budget by 10 % for the next 20 years, it's a great bet. Do the math.
I think the real reason, is that some people like to see the expansion of Authoritarianism, the expansion of Dictatorships. If Russia is successful, it may mean that Authoritarianism is inevitable, that Authoritarianism will eventually succeed in other places, like the United States. An appealing notion for those who support Trump.
And it is mostly people who have supported Trump who don't like our support of Ukraine, correct?
The same people who told us things were going well in Vietnam and Afghanistan for decades and we just needed to keep at it for a while longer and spend more billions are the same folks telling us this fairy tale about Ukraine. The war has destroyed the country. US bombs are being used on Ukranian cities, bridges, and roads. They are killing Ukranian citizens and extending the war. There is no effort being made to find a way to end it. The money is being stolen by Ukranian oligarchs. The weapons are unaccounted for and risk ending up in the hands of terrorists on the black market. But some folks who stand to benefit are claiming it is all good. So that's that.
-
Biden can help Zelensky, and Ukraine, by pushing for peace
If an enduring peace can be had through negotiation — and we won’t know if it can until we explore that prospect — then negotiations would be in America’s interest. That alone might be enough reason for Biden to steer Ukraine toward the table. But as it happens, such a peace would be in Ukraine’s interests — and most of the world’s — as well.
To start with some of the more mundane virtues of near-term peace: The war is costing America lots of money. And this spending is inflationary at a time when inflation is a big global problem. The war also fuels inflation in other ways, notably by constricting the supply of energy to European allies. And, as those allies buy American natural gas as a substitute, some European officials are accusing the United States of profiteering, revealing tensions within the West that could grow as the winter proceeds.
Meanwhile, every day the war continues, more Ukrainians die, and more of Ukraine gets wrecked. And every day there is some risk of a fluke turning this into a wider war, featuring direct NATO involvement. Even if such a war didn’t go nuclear, the devastation could be vast. “World War III” might be an overstatement — but it might not (especially in light of a recent report that China and Russia have a secret mutual defense agreement).
So, what are the arguments against a peace that leaves Russia in control of some Ukrainian territory? The most common one involves a goal shared by the United States and Ukraine and many other countries: giving Russia a big dose of negative reinforcement for invading its neighbor. This punishment could deter Russia from repeating such aggression and deter other countries from aggression by reinforcing the norm against attacking sovereign nations (even if, awkwardly, the United States has violated that norm — which is also an international law — more than once in recent decades).
Obviously, pushing Russian troops back to pre-2014 lines (Zelensky’s stated goal) or even pre-February lines, would be a powerful form of negative reinforcement — and the more powerful the better. But it’s important to see that, even without that, this war has been extremely costly for Russia and for Vladimir Putin.
Samuel Charap, an expert on Ukraine at the Rand Corp., recently said, “Russia has already lost no matter where the line is. Russia’s strategic defeat … is already a thing. That’s done.” The reason, he said, is the “astonishing damage to (a) their military capabilities, (b) their international reputation, (c) their economy, their capacity to rearm. I mean, Russia has weakened itself in the last nine months more than any U.S. policy … could have done.”
In other words: Even if Russia held onto all or most of the territory it now has, its February invasion would be seen — by it and by other countries — as a very cautionary tale, in stark contrast to its casual seizure of Crimea in 2014.
Of course, there is one argument against a peace deal that, especially from Ukraine’s point of view, is potent: Justice demands that Russia give back all the land it took. But that’s a compelling argument for more war only if Ukraine has a good chance of getting the land back through continued fighting — and getting it back at acceptable human cost. The current state of play on the battlefield casts doubt on that premise...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/02/how-biden-help-ukraine-zelensky/
-
Biden can help Zelensky, and Ukraine, by pushing for peace
Ukraine has already taken back 50 % of the land taken by Russia in the first month of invasion of 2022. Let's say they take back another 25 %, regaining a total of 75 %. And then make a peace deal.
This would be a good deal for Ukraine? Russia would have learned this lesson? No. Putin would control the narrative. We would spin it as a hard won victory. And while gaining only a small slice of Ukraine in 2022-2023(?) war may seem minor, it still puts Russia closer to taking back all of Ukraine. They would be free to try again once they rebuild their military.
Remember, Russia has a history of launching an aggressive war, suffering major defeats, and coming back for more. They tried to overrun Poland in 1920. And suffered a major defeat. Learned their lesson? No, they just came back in 1939.
Do I think Ukraine can take back all of the gains Russia made in 2014 and 2022? I think this may be tough. As the Russians get pushed back to their own border, they get closer and closer to their own source of supplies. Russia logistics are not very strong. They can't support a deep advance into Ukraine. They don't have enough quality trucks. They could really use some Lend Lease Dodge trucks like the thousands they had in 1943-1945. But at some point, within a few miles of the border, they should be able to hold. Still, if the army morale suffers enough, who knows?
The two things Ukraine can and should take back are:
1. The Crimea Land Bridge.
2. Crimea.
The Crimean Land Bridge should be relatively easy. It's a logistical nightmare. A long narrow corridor leading a relatively long way back into Russia. Might even be possible to trap a good portion of the Russia army with their backs to the very shallow Sea of Azov, with a low to zero chance of evacuating.
Crimea seems tough. But once they take the Crimea Land Bridge and destroy the Russia build bridge (not to be confused with the 'Crimean Land Bridge') it will be isolated and they should be able to take it back.
Losing Crimea, Losing the Naval Base at Sevastopol, that the Russians took in 2014 would be a big psychological blow. It might be enough to convince Russians that war is not the answer.
Who knows. Maybe Russian morale will collapse enough for the Ukrainians to take back all their territories. But they better not make peace without taking the Crimean Land and Crimea. Otherwise, the Russians are sure to come back once they have rebuild their army and rigorously rid it of excessive corruption. They will be too encouraged by whatever gains they end up with from 2022 not to press on a few years down the road.
Is their risk in doing this? Yes. Russia may use Neclear weapons. But if we don't stand up to them at some point they can overrun Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, Germany and beyond. If we are ever going to stand up to them, it had better be now. Or not at all.
If we back down now, but make a strong stand later, for let's say Poland, Russia is bound to think that the threat of Nuclear War was enough in 2023. Surely a few real Nuclear Strikes will work in 2030.
We must make a strong stand now. Or rigorously resolve not to make a strong stand in the future against any Russian advance. Making a strong stand now, or resolving not to make a strong stand ever, are our two best options. Backing down now, but making a strong stand later, is our worst option.
Question for both Jon and Richard, or anyone else?
Which option do you believe we should make?
1. Make a strong stand now.
2. Not make a strong stand now, but do so if Russia tries again, as it did in 2014 and 2022.
3. Not to ever make a strong stand in Europe, anywhere, no matter what Russia invades. The risks of Nuclear War are just too great.
And, as always, it's important not to dodge tough questions. Facing questions is the key to coming to better understanding. Otherwise, one is stuck in always maintaining one's current beliefs.
Can either of you answer one simple, tough question?
-
Ukraine has already taken back 50 % of the land taken by Russia in the first month of invasion of 2022. Let's say they take back another 25 %, regaining a total of 75 %. And then make a peace deal.
This would be a good deal for Ukraine? Russia would have learned this lesson? No. Putin would control the narrative. We would spin it as a hard won victory. And while gaining only a small slice of Ukraine in 2022-2023(?) war may seem minor, it still puts Russia closer to taking back all of Ukraine. They would be free to try again once they rebuild their military.
Remember, Russia has a history of launching an aggressive war, suffering major defeats, and coming back for more. They tried to overrun Poland in 1920. And suffered a major defeat. Learned their lesson? No, they just came back in 1939.
Do I think Ukraine can take back all of the gains Russia made in 2014 and 2022? I think this may be tough. As the Russians get pushed back to their own border, they get closer and closer to their own source of supplies. Russia logistics are not very strong. They can't support a deep advance into Ukraine. They don't have enough quality trucks. They could really use some Lend Lease Dodge trucks like the thousands they had in 1943-1945. But at some point, within a few miles of the border, they should be able to hold. Still, if the army morale suffers enough, who knows?
The two things Ukraine can and should take back are:
1. The Crimea Land Bridge.
2. Crimea.
The Crimean Land Bridge should be relatively easy. It's a logistical nightmare. A long narrow corridor leading a relatively long way back into Russia. Might even be possible to trap a good portion of the Russia army with their backs to the very shallow Sea of Azov, with a low to zero chance of evacuating.
Crimea seems tough. But once they take the Crimea Land Bridge and destroy the Russia build bridge (not to be confused with the 'Crimean Land Bridge') it will be isolated and they should be able to take it back.
Losing Crimea, Losing the Naval Base at Sevastopol, that the Russians took in 2014 would be a big psychological blow. It might be enough to convince Russians that war is not the answer.
Who knows. Maybe Russian morale will collapse enough for the Ukrainians to take back all their territories. But they better not make peace without taking the Crimean Land and Crimea. Otherwise, the Russians are sure to come back once they have rebuild their army and rigorously rid it of excessive corruption. They will be too encouraged by whatever gains they end up with from 2022 not to press on a few years down the road.
Is their risk in doing this? Yes. Russia may use Neclear weapons. But if we don't stand up to them at some point they can overrun Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, Germany and beyond. If we are ever going to stand up to them, it had better be now. Or not at all.
If we back down now, but make a strong stand later, for let's say Poland, Russia is bound to think that the threat of Nuclear War was enough in 2023. Surely a few real Nuclear Strikes will work in 2030.
We must make a strong stand now. Or rigorously resolve not to make a strong stand in the future against any Russian advance. Making a strong stand now, or resolving not to make a strong stand ever, are our two best options. Backing down now, but making a strong stand later, is our worst option.
Question for both Jon and Richard, or anyone else?
Which option do you believe we should make?
1. Make a strong stand now.
2. Not make a strong stand now, but do so if Russia tries again, as it did in 2014 and 2022.
3. Not to ever make a strong stand in Europe, anywhere, no matter what Russia invades. The risks of Nuclear War are just too great.
And, as always, it's important not to dodge tough questions. Facing questions is the key to coming to better understanding. Otherwise, one is stuck in always maintaining one's current beliefs.
Can either of you answer one simple, tough question?
It's up to the Ukrainians and Russians how this war ends. The US and NATO should be facilitating that settlement, however, instead of funding endless war. Despite the expenditure of billions of US taxpayer dollars to extend the war, there has been to my knowledge been no effort by the US to figure out how it should be ended. None. Just an open checkbook for more war. It is not even clear what the US objective is here except send billions to the companies that benefit from war (who then fund the election campaigns of the establishment politicians who fund the war in a vicious circle).
How many years will the US fund this war before deciding enough is enough? It took decades to get out of Afghanistan and Vietnam and the war mongers complained when it did eventually happen. All the lies that things were going well and just holding out a bit longer and spending more money would eventually achieve success are being repeated. Ironically by exactly the same people who made that argument about Afghanistan and were never held accountable. It is unreal that the intelligence, military, and contractors who conducted the war in Afghanistan were not tried for perjury and treason for the lies they told to fund that war and cause the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and countless civilians based on their lies to Congress. All for no purpose. Twenty years of war for nothing. Who can even believe the information being provided by Ukraine and the US about how things are going with a long track record of absolute lies and the media operating as a state sponsored arm of the government? There is no independent confirmation.
-
Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win
During the early years of America's Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln sought a limited conflict against people he still regarded as fellow countrymen and with whom he sought reconciliation. Only after three years of stalemate did he turn to "Unconditional Surrender Grant," who in turn unleashed General William Tecumseh Sherman to "make Georgia howl" and help bring the war to its decisively violent conclusion.
Russian President Vladimir Putin waited only six months before switching from a special military operation to full scale war against Ukraine. Putin's initial assault was limited to barely 150,000 troops. He expected a quick victory followed by negotiations on his principal concerns: Russian control of Crimea, Ukrainian neutrality, and autonomy for the Russian population in the Donbas, but he was wrong. Putin had not counted on Ukraine's stiff resistance or the West's massive military and economic intervention. Faced with a new situation, Putin changed his strategy. Now he is about to unleash his own General Sherman and make Ukraine howl.
Last month Putin gave General Sergey Surovikin overall command of Russia's war in the Ukraine. Surovikin comes from the technologically sophisticated Aerospace Forces, but has fought on the ground in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Syria where he is credited with saving the Assad regime. Surovikin has stated publicly that there will be no half measures in Ukraine. Instead, he has begun to methodically destroy Ukraine's infrastructure with precision missile attacks. Armies need railroads and while Sherman systematically tore up the tracks leading to Atlanta, Surovikin is destroying the electricity grid which powers Ukrainian railroads. This has left Ukrainian cities cold and dark, but Surovikin seems to agree with Sherman that "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."
Some have presented this conflict as a morality play, between good and evil, but the reality is more complex. Ukraine is no flourishing democracy. It is an impoverished, corrupt, one-party state with extensive censorship, where opposition newspapers and political parties have been shut down. Before the war, far right Ukrainian nationalist groups like the Azov Brigade were soundly condemned by the U.S. Congress. Kiev's determined campaign against the Russian language is analogous to the Canadian government trying to ban French in Quebec. Ukrainian shells have killed hundreds of civilians in the Donbas and there are emerging reports of Ukrainian war crimes. The truly moral course of action would be to end this war with negotiations rather than prolong the suffering the Ukrainian people in a conflict they are unlikely to win without risking American lives.
https://www.newsweek.com/lessons-us-civil-war-show-why-ukraine-cant-win-opinion-1764992
The authors are retired US diplomats.
The best case scenario for Ukraine seems to be a Stalemate. I don't view Russia's unconditional surrender as a likely outcome of this war.
-
Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Winhttps://www.newsweek.com/lessons-us-civil-war-show-why-ukraine-cant-win-opinion-1764992
The authors are retired US diplomats.
The best case scenario for Ukraine seems to be a Stalemate. I don't view Russia's unconditional surrender as a likely outcome of this war.
The main point of this article seems to be that Ukraine can't win. Sherman helped win the Civil War by "Making Georgia Howl" and destroying the rail network. This is, supposedly similar to destroying the Power grid of Ukraine. Sherman didn't win by making Georgia Howl. He won by putting boots on the ground. Using Long Range bombardment to destroy the Power Grid is more equivalent to using Long Range bombardment to bombard Fort Sumter and bombardment. It made South Carolina howl, but it did not cause Fort Sumter to fall. Nor Charleston to fall. Nor the Confederacy to fall. And while the Confederacy could not repair destroyed rail lines after the Union Army passed through, it appears that Ukraine can repair the Power Grid over time. And we have reinforced their missile defense which makes it much harder successfully attack the Power Grid. Even with the best conventional weapon system they still have in reserve, the Iranian Drones :) And with the coming of the Patriot Missile Systems we are finally sending, this ability will be further weakened.
But neither Jon Banks nor Richard Smith have answered my previous question. If we reduce our support for Ukraine, the Russians will conclude that it is the threat of Nuclear War that caused us to back off. So, when is the best time to stand up to the Russians? Now? If Russian later assaults Ukraine by land again in ten years? Or with Nuclear Weapons in one year? Or attacks the Baltic States, or Finland, or Poland, or Germany? Or is it best not to stand up to them at all and allow Russia to overrun all of Central Europe right up to the French border? What is our best option and why?
-
President Zelensky is scheduled to address the U. S. Congress this week. I was hoping this could be done after the war was won. When President Biden could, for the second time, offer Zelensky a ride. On Air Force One. With all the honors accorded to him as it would be to a U. S. President. Including referring to this plane as "Air Force One" as long as Zelensky was on board, both coming and going. Biden could await him in Washington D. C. And there Zelensky could address a Joint Session of Congress.
President Trump used to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. But he supported and praised Putin, the enemy of the 21st Century Churchill. I prefer a President who does not keep a bust of Churchill, but who does support Zelensky and who stands against Putin.
Well, I guess this won't happen quite the way I envisioned it. But I do hope that President Zelensky will reflect, that if his parents were American and not Ukrainian, he might have had his own American T. V. show.
-
President Zelensky is scheduled to address the U. S. Congress this week. I was hoping this could be done after the war was won. When President Biden could, for the second time, offer Zelensky a ride. On Air Force One. With all the honors accorded to him as it would be to a U. S. President. Including referring to this plane as "Air Force One" as long as Zelensky was on board, both coming and going. Biden could await him in Washington D. C. And there Zelensky could address a Joint Session of Congress.
President Trump used to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. But he supported and praised Putin, the enemy of the 21st Century Churchill. I prefer a President who does not keep a bust of Churchill, but who does support Zelensky and who stands against Putin.
Well, I guess this won't happen quite the way I envisioned it. But I do hope that President Zelensky will reflect, that if his parents were American and not Ukrainian, he might have had his own American T. V. show.
The military complex is loving it. The pending bill will significantly increase the Pentagon budget to levels never seen in history. There are billions allocated for Ukraine with no end to that war in sight. Nor is any desired by the military officials and politicians who are benefitting from this war. They want it to continue forever. Like Afghanistan and Vietnam. Zelensky is just a propaganda tool for that purpose. They have sold a fake narrative about this war being about "democracy". The same people are telling us it is going well (just like in Afghanistan and Vietnam!). What they won't say is how long it's going to last or the objective or how to bring about an end. It's another endless war. Imagine if a fraction of those billions were spent on homeless Americans or other domestic causes instead of endless war? How long will it last and how much will it cost? They won't say.
-
The military complex is loving it. The pending bill will significantly increase the Pentagon budget to levels never seen in history. There are billions allocated for Ukraine with no end to that war in sight. Nor is any desired by the military officials and politicians who are benefitting from this war. They want it to continue forever. Like Afghanistan and Vietnam. Zelensky is just a propaganda tool for that purpose. They have sold a fake narrative about this war being about "democracy". The same people are telling us it is going well (just like in Afghanistan and Vietnam!). What they won't say is how long it's going to last or the objective or how to bring about an end. It's another endless war. Imagine if a fraction of those billions were spent on homeless Americans or other domestic causes instead of endless war? How long will it last and how much will it cost? They won't say.
Was Afghanistan a democracy?
Was South Vietnam a democracy?
Is Iraq a democracy?
For once, we are supporting a real democracy. Not just any old democracy, but one that is the bulwark against Russian expansion. The Russians can't help themselves. They are already talking about, including on TV broadcasts, the future need to take over the Baltic States and Poland.
Look, I'm willing to compromise.
We already have tried your way. Send Ukraine minimum support. Like we have done up from 2014 into 2021. And it hasn't work. Stupidity is defined as keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep withholding aid to other countries to stop Russia and being "surprised" each time they come up with a new excuse to grab as much land as they can from a neighbor. Let's try something different in Europe. We got a real democracy to help this time. Let's stop helping Authoritarian regimes and start helping a democracy for a change.
You don't seem to mind helping an authoritarian regimes like Iraq. You have hardly complained about that at all, if at all. It's supporting Ukraine you object to.
I have two proposals:
1. We can cut our regular defense spending by 20 %. Use 10 % each year to help Ukraine. And the other 10 % each year to build up more of the wall along our Southern border. Which, after giving Trump four years to pour money into it, it still doesn't seem to work too well. I don't care. We can still keep trying if you like. Let's just make a stand against Russia overrunning central Europe. And this needs to start with Ukraine. With Russia tied down at the moment and we (mainly) only have China to worry about, I think we can cut down our military expenditures while the war in Ukraine lasts.
2. Or, let's drop our support for Iraq. And use the money we save on Afghanistan and Iraq each year to give Ukraine a chance.
Suddenly cutting off Ukraine makes it likely that Russia will soon overrun all of Ukraine and within a decade overrun all of central Europe. Removing one of the great regions of democracy from the world. The generation that undoes the work of the greatest generation will be the worst generation.
Ukraine is not guaranteed to remain a democracy? True. Until recently, it was an authoritarian regime, which Putin had no problem with. But so what? There is no guarantee that any country will remain a democracy, even the United States. Particularly if Trump, a candidate you strongly supported until recently, somehow wins/cheats his way back into the White House. And maybe makes Charles Flynn Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with a host of other changes guaranteeing elections end up the way he and his successors want in the future. In the coming struggle, I'm betting on the people of Ukraine to defeat the vultures who will try to take over Ukraine from within if Russia is defeated. I trust the courage and determination of the people of Ukraine more than I trust a solid third of my fellow Americans (in name only).
-
Was Afghanistan a democracy?
Was South Vietnam a democracy?
Is Iraq a democracy?
For once, we are supporting a real democracy. Not just any old democracy, but one that is the bulwark against Russian expansion. The Russians can't help themselves. They are already talking about, including on TV broadcasts, the future need to take over the Baltic States and Poland.
Look, I'm willing to compromise.
We already have tried your way. Send Ukraine minimum support. Like we have done up from 2014 into 2021. And it hasn't work. Stupidity is defined as keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep withholding aid to other countries to stop Russia and being "surprised" each time they come up with a new excuse to grab as much land as they can from a neighbor. Let's try something different in Europe. We got a real democracy to help this time. Let's stop helping Authoritarian regimes and start helping a democracy for a change.
You don't seem to mind helping an authoritarian regimes like Iraq. You have hardly complained about that at all, if at all. It's supporting Ukraine you object to.
I have two proposals:
1. We can cut our regular defense spending by 20 %. Use 10 % each year to help Ukraine. And the other 10 % each year to build up more of the wall along our Southern border. Which, after giving Trump four years to pour money into it, it still doesn't seem to work too well. I don't care. We can still keep trying if you like. Let's just make a stand against Russia overrunning central Europe. And this needs to start with Ukraine. With Russia tied down at the moment and we (mainly) only have China to worry about, I think we can cut down our military expenditures while the war in Ukraine lasts.
2. Or, let's drop our support for Iraq. And use the money we save on Afghanistan and Iraq each year to give Ukraine a chance.
Suddenly cutting off Ukraine makes it likely that Russia will soon overrun all of Ukraine and within a decade overrun all of central Europe. Removing one of the great regions of democracy from the world. The generation that undoes the work of the greatest generation will be the worst generation.
Ukraine is not guaranteed to remain a democracy? True. Until recently, it was an authoritarian regime, which Putin had no problem with. But so what? There is no guarantee that any country will remain a democracy, even the United States. Particularly if Trump, a candidate you strongly supported until recently, somehow wins/cheats his way back into the White House. And maybe makes Charles Flynn Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with a host of other changes guaranteeing elections end up the way he and his successors want in the future. In the coming struggle, I'm betting on the people of Ukraine to defeat the vultures who will try to take over Ukraine from within if Russia is defeated. I trust the courage and determination of the people of Ukraine more than I trust a solid third of my fellow Americans (in name only).
Ukraine is not a democracy. They oppress free speech and religion almost as much as the US. Ukraine does not have the capability to force an end to this war through military means. No matter how many weapons they are sent. They can't conquer Russia and force a surrender. The only strategy outlined by Zelinsky to end this war is to hold out for as long as it takes. A North Vietnam-like strategy that plays the long game. A decade or more of war until Russia decides to leave. The US is already in over $100 billion in the first year. Europe and the rest of the world are laughing their arses off at us. They are contributing almost nothing. Our corrupt establishment politicians used Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq to funnel trillions of dollars to their supporters. They are doing exactly the same thing in Ukraine. McConnell recently said that Ukraine is the number one priority of Republicans. Number one. Not crime, inflation, an open border, crashing stock market or homelessness, but Ukraine. Why? Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict? Of course not. McConnell is using the war as an excuse to funnel an inexhaustible amount of money to military contractors who will support him and other establishment politicians in future campaigns. An endless cycle. Not every wrong can be righted. There are many wars in the world. Ukraine is just a cause for our corrupt politicians to control the money.
-
Ukraine is not a democracy. They oppress free speech and religion almost as much as the US. Ukraine does not have the capability to force an end to this war through military means. No matter how many weapons they are sent. They can't conquer Russia and force a surrender. The only strategy outlined by Zelinsky to end this war is to hold out for as long as it takes. A North Vietnam-like strategy that plays the long game. A decade or more of war until Russia decides to leave. The US is already in over $100 billion in the first year. Europe and the rest of the world are laughing their arses off at us. They are contributing almost nothing. Our corrupt establishment politicians used Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq to funnel trillions of dollars to their supporters. They are doing exactly the same thing in Ukraine. McConnell recently said that Ukraine is the number one priority of Republicans. Number one. Not crime, inflation, an open border, crashing stock market or homelessness, but Ukraine. Why? Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict? Of course not. McConnell is using the war as an excuse to funnel an inexhaustible amount of money to military contractors who will support him and other establishment politicians in future campaigns. An endless cycle. Not every wrong can be righted. There are many wars in the world. Ukraine is just a cause for our corrupt politicians to control the money.
So much misguided BS from the number one USA hater. Idiots waving the American flagg and calling themselves "Patriots" are the biggest threat to the country. They don't want democracy. They don't even know what the word means.
Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict?
A regional conflict? HAHAHAHA Such stupidity!
If the world allows Russia to take Ukraine. the Chinese will feel free to take Taiwan next.... But I bet you don't even understand the significance for the world economy and the USA of something like that happening, do you now?
-
So much misguided BS from the number one USA hater. Idiots waving the American flagg and calling themselves "Patriots" are the biggest threat to the country. They don't want democracy. They don't even know what the word means.
Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict?
A regional conflict? HAHAHAHA Such stupidity!
If the world allows Russia to take Ukraine. the Chinese will feel free to take Taiwan next.... But I bet you don't even understand the significance for the world economy and the USA of something like that happening, do you now?
Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US? A typical opinion from "Europe." Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort. If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible? Because it is a fake narrative. Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat? LOL. "Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns. A vicious political cycle that dates back to Vietnam or further to the Cold War. These US politicians actually don't want the help of "Europe." They want to control the purse strings for trillions of dollars and need a cause to justify the spending. And the endless wars and fake narratives make that possible.
-
Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US? A typical opinion from "Europe." Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort. If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible? Because it is a fake narrative. Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat? LOL. "Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns. A vicious political cycle that dates back to Vietnam or further to the Cold War. These US politicians actually don't want the help of "Europe." They want to control the purse strings for trillions of dollars and need a cause to justify the spending. And the endless wars and fake narratives make that possible.
Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US?
I'm not in favor of endless war, regardless who pays for it. I would prefer there was no war at all.
But why I am not surprised that you wouldn't mind if Putin takes Ukraine and shows the Chinese how it can be done with the Western world looking at the sideline and doing nothing?
Surely, you wouldn't mind either if China took back Taiwan, even if the economic damage to the US would be beyond belief, right?
Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort. If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible?
I agree. All NATO members should carry the weight and it is true that some don't. Having said that, NATO and the European countries are not doing as little as possible, although I would like to see them doing more. But they are walking a thin line. If Russia is attacked by NATO, the next step of that idiot Putin could be a nuclear response and nobody wants that. But, your friend Putin isn't a complete idiot. The sanctions and the help Ukraine gets from the Western countries have clearly made him think again.
Because it is a fake narrative. Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat? LOL.
So, having a massive nuclear arsenal doesn't make them a threat? In what kind of weird alternate reality do you live? Are you one of those fools who believe a nuclear war is survivable?
"Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns.
This BS might make sense if I first take some LSD trip... What in the world are you talking about?
-
Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US?
I'm not in favor of endless war, regardless who pays for it. I would prefer there was no war at all.
But why I am not surprised that you wouldn't mind if Putin takes Ukraine and shows the Chinese how it can be done with the Western world looking at the sideline and doing nothing?
Surely, you wouldn't mind either if China took back Taiwan, even if the economic damage to the US would be beyond belief, right?
Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort. If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible?
I agree. All NATO members should carry the weight and it is true that some don't. Having said that, NATO and the European countries are not doing as little as possible, although I would like to see them doing more. But they are walking a thin line. If Russia is attacked by NATO, the next step of that idiot Putin could be a nuclear response and nobody wants that. But, your friend Putin isn't a complete idiot. The sanctions and the help Ukraine gets from the Western countries have clearly made him think again.
Because it is a fake narrative. Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat? LOL.
So, having a massive nuclear arsenal doesn't make them a threat? In what kind of weird alternate reality do you live? Are you one of those fools who believe a nuclear war is survivable?
"Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns.
This BS might make sense if I first take some LSD trip... What in the world are you talking about?
So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year? A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent. Sounds familiar. It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator). Russia is in the moral wrong for invading a sovereign state but such wars are going on around the world. It is not the responsibility of America to right every wrong. And such prior efforts have failed throughout history. Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule. Many likely favor it over the complete destruction of their homes and annihilation of their families that will certainly occur if the war continues and escalates indefinitely - as it almost certainly will.
What is really going on here? American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war. In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Prior to that it was largely overstating threats posed from Russia during the Cold War. All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies. It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries. But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies.
-
So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year? A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent. Sounds familiar. It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator). Russia is in the moral wrong for invading a sovereign state but such wars are going on around the world. It is not the responsibility of America to right every wrong. And such prior efforts have failed throughout history. Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule. Many likely favor it over the complete destruction of their homes and annihilation of their families that will certainly occur if the war continues and escalates indefinitely - as it almost certainly will.
What is really going on here? American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war. In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Prior to the it was largely overstated treat from Russia during the Cold War. All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies. It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries. But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies.
So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year? A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent. Sounds familiar.
Yes, it shows a high level of ignorance. If you really believe it's not in American interest to keep Russia, China and others at bay, you're even a bigger fool than I thought you are. Hasn't Pearl Harbor tought you nothing? Do you really think America is an island that can easily stay out of an international conflict? Really?
It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator).
Oh boy... this is dumb, even for you.
Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule.
This is simply not true and only shows just how little you know and understand about the actual situation.
What is really going on here? American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war. In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Prior to the it was largely overstated treat from Russia during the Cold War. All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies. It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries. But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies.
In hindsight it's easy to make speeches, but the reality is that all it takes is underestimating a crisis once. The fact that America has politicians that are just as corrupt as those in other countries doesn't alter the fact that there are plenty of treats and challenges out there and just shutting your eyes for them for mere monetary reasons is naive and self destructive.
-
But neither Jon Banks nor Richard Smith have answered my previous question. If we reduce our support for Ukraine, the Russians will conclude that it is the threat of Nuclear War that caused us to back off. So, when is the best time to stand up to the Russians? Now? If Russian later assaults Ukraine by land again in ten years? Or with Nuclear Weapons in one year? Or attacks the Baltic States, or Finland, or Poland, or Germany? Or is it best not to stand up to them at all and allow Russia to overrun all of Central Europe right up to the French border? What is our best option and why?
Given that Russia can't even conquer all of eastern Ukraine after 10 months of war against a smaller and poorer country (albeit a country with intelligence and military aid from NATO countries), why do you think it's realistic that Putin would try to invade a NATO country next?
This war has exposed Russia's weaknesses in terms of waging a conventional war. They're in no position to expand their war beyond Ukraine. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they're not a NATO member state so they're on their own. And I doubt that they can win the war. The best case for Ukraine in terms of what is realistically possible is for them to fight Russia to a stalemate.
So to answer your question, no, I don't think there's a realistic threat of Putin attacking a NATO country any time soon. I don't think we need to "stand up" to Russia. They're not attacking the US or our national interests.
This war is a regional war being fought over regional issues. It's not America's fight. Regardless of the outcome of the war, there's very little at stake for us. I also don't believe Russia intends to nuke Ukraine. They are doing more than enough damage to Ukraine with conventional weapons.
Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russia today is a corrupt and declining country. It doesn't do the US any good to exaggerate or overestimate the threat to us posed by Russia.
While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...
-
Given that Russia can't even conquer all of eastern Ukraine after 10 months of war against a smaller and poorer country (albeit a country with intelligence and military aid from NATO countries), why do you think it's realistic that Putin would try to invade a NATO country next?
This war has exposed Russia's weaknesses in terms of waging a conventional war. They're in no position to expand their war beyond Ukraine. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they're not a NATO member state so they're on their own. And I doubt that they can win the war. The best case for Ukraine in terms of what is realistically possible is for them to fight Russia to a stalemate.
So to answer your question, no, I don't think there's a realistic threat of Putin attacking a NATO country any time soon. I don't think we need to "stand up" to Russia. They're not attacking the US or our national interests.
This war is a regional war being fought over regional issues. It's not America's fight. Regardless of the outcome of the war, there's very little at stake for us. I also don't believe Russia intends to nuke Ukraine. They are doing more than enough damage to Ukraine with conventional weapons.
Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russia today is a corrupt and declining country. It doesn't do the US any good to exaggerate or overestimate the threat to us posed by Russia.
While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...
While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...
And that's exactly why it is in the interest of America to support (within NATO) Ukraine, because if they don't help and Putin takes Ukraine it may well send the message to China that it's ok to take Taiwan, because the Americans won't do anything anyway.
-
So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year? A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent. Sounds familiar.
Yes, it shows a high level of ignorance. If you really believe it's not in American interest to keep Russia, China and others at bay, you're even a bigger fool than I thought you are. Hasn't Pearl Harbor tought you nothing? Do you really think America is an island that can easily stay out of an international conflict? Really?
It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator).
Oh boy... this is dumb, even for you.
Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule.
This is simply not true and only shows just how little you know and understand about the actual situation.
What is really going on here? American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war. In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Prior to the it was largely overstated treat from Russia during the Cold War. All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies. It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries. But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies.
In hindsight it's easy to make speeches, but the reality is that all it takes is underestimating a crisis once. The fact that America has politicians that are just as corrupt as those in other countries doesn't alter the fact that there are plenty of treats and challenges out there and just shutting your eyes for them for mere monetary reasons is naive and self destructive.
You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US? Wow. Maybe you do live in "Europe" with that level of ignorance. The US has no apparent interest in this conflict. Most Americans never heard of Ukraine before the media adopted it as an ersatz cause. Obama certainly was aware of the risks of intervention when he sent blankets instead of weapons. Our politicians have used emotion to convince some Americans that we need to spend billions to fund a war with no clear objective or end game. They needed a replacement war for Afghanistan to continue funding their supporters. It will just go on and on until Russia decides how it ends. Does Russia escalate? What happens then? The US must already have advisors in Ukraine to train them on how to use the defense systems that are being sent despite lies about it. Sound familiar? When that doesn't work, what then? Creeping escalation for over years as in Vietnam? American should have learned by now that there is nothing to gain and much to be lost from intervening in these regional conflicts which can't be won through military intervention and with no clear objective or means to bring about an end. Our corrupt politicians understand all this. They are not sending this money for any cause or objective, however. They want to gain access to the money and funnel it to the military contractors who kick back the funding to their campaigns, relatives, and cronies. Conducting war is an enormous source of power to them.
-
While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...
And that's exactly why it is in the interest of America to support (within NATO) Ukraine, because if they don't help and Putin takes Ukraine it may well send the message to China that it's ok to take Taiwan, because the Americans won't do anything anyway.
Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.
Nations typically do what they perceive as 'in their best interests' regardless of the consequences. Hence our invasion of Iraq in 2003 over the objections of many countries.
In the case of Taiwan, the only reason I see for China to invade is if Taiwan allows US or other foreign militaries to have bases on their land, or if Taiwan officially declares independence from China.
I don't really see how our spending hundreds of billions on Ukraine deters China. If anything, it encourages China given the fact that our aid to Ukraine limits how much aid we can give Taiwan. So right now would be a good time for China to invade Taiwan. But China, unlike Russia, is an ascending world power and has more to lose from a potential war. So in the near future, an invasion of Taiwan seems highly unlikely.
-
Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.
Nations typically do what they perceive as 'in their best interests' regardless of the consequences. Hence our invasion of Iraq in 2003 over the objections of many countries.
In the case of Taiwan, the only reason I see for China to invade is if Taiwan allows US or other foreign militaries to have bases on their land, or if Taiwan officially declares independence from China.
I don't really see how our spending hundreds of billions on Ukraine deters China. If anything, it encourages China given the fact that our aid to Ukraine limits how much aid we can give Taiwan. So right now would be a good time for China to invade Taiwan. But China, unlike Russia, is an ascending world power and has more to lose from a potential war. So in the near future, an invasion of Taiwan seems highly unlikely.
Great points. And "Europe" wouldn't send a dime to defend Taiwan. It would be the responsibility of the US despite the alleged compelling interest involved. The same story repeated over and over.
-
As Ukraine Prepares for a Second Year at War, the Prospect of a Stalemate Looms
As the war in Ukraine soon enters its second year, Ukrainian troops will find it much more challenging to reclaim territory from Russian forces who are focused on defending their remaining land gains rather than making a deeper push into the country, American officials say.
Over the course of the first 10 months of the war, the Ukrainian military has — with significant American support — outmaneuvered an incompetent Russian military, fought it to a standstill and then retaken hundreds of square miles and the only regional capital that Russia had captured.
Despite relentless Russian attacks on civilian power supplies, Ukraine has still kept up the momentum on the front lines since September. But the tide of the war is likely to change in the coming months, as Russia improves its defenses and pushes more soldiers to the front lines, making it more difficult for Ukraine to retake the huge swaths of territory it lost this year, according to U.S. government assessments.
All of these factors make the most likely scenario going into the second year of the war a stalemate in which neither army can take much land despite intense fighting.
On Russia's new Commander, General Surovikin and Russia's mobilization:
American officials say there is evidence that the Kremlin is finally beginning to learn from its mistakes. It has put a single general in charge of the war — Sergei Surovikin — who American officials say is executing complicated military operations more efficiently.
In recent weeks, Ukrainian military officials have said Moscow has conducted stepped-up airstrikes on the army’s defensive lines, increasing Ukrainian casualties.
As botched as the initial Russian partial mobilization of 300,000 reservists was, the sheer numbers are now making a difference along the defensive lines. And unless those troops suffer a bad winter, which is possible with poor logistics and bad leadership, they will only shore up more by the spring, American officials said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-stalemate.html
Bottom-line, the consensus among western leaders is that Ukraine is unlikely to outright win the war.
Best-case scenario for Ukraine is a stalemate with some concessions from Russia. Worst-case is that Putin bites off a larger chunk of Ukraine's territory within the next few months as 300,000+ troops are being deployed into the conflict by Russia.
-
Great points. And "Europe" wouldn't send a dime to defend Taiwan. It would be the responsibility of the US despite the alleged compelling interest involved. The same story repeated over and over.
Right. Europeans are a bit inconsistent. They complain about the US benefitting from the war but haven't been willing to shore up their own militaries and defense industries so they can be less reliant on the US defense industry.
So the US remains the head and the EU is the tail in terms of the foreign policy of the western world. That relationship won't change until EU countries spend more on defense.
-
Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.
Nations typically do what they perceive as 'in their best interests' regardless of the consequences. Hence our invasion of Iraq in 2003 over the objections of many countries.
In the case of Taiwan, the only reason I see for China to invade is if Taiwan allows US or other foreign militaries to have bases on their land, or if Taiwan officially declares independence from China.
I don't really see how our spending hundreds of billions on Ukraine deters China. If anything, it encourages China given the fact that our aid to Ukraine limits how much aid we can give Taiwan. So right now would be a good time for China to invade Taiwan. But China, unlike Russia, is an ascending world power and has more to lose from a potential war. So in the near future, an invasion of Taiwan seems highly unlikely.
Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.
Who said anything about arming Taiwan. If China invades Taiwan, America will take military action to help them. That's policy! That, the potential threat of nuclear conflict and the economic interests of China in America is what deters XI.
-
Great points. And "Europe" wouldn't send a dime to defend Taiwan. It would be the responsibility of the US despite the alleged compelling interest involved. The same story repeated over and over.
Hey, that's what happens when you keep on sticking your nose in other country's business and the US has been doing for decades.
-
You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US? Wow. Maybe you do live in "Europe" with that level of ignorance. The US has no apparent interest in this conflict. Most Americans never heard of Ukraine before the media adopted it as an ersatz cause. Obama certainly was aware of the risks of intervention when he sent blankets instead of weapons. Our politicians have used emotion to convince some Americans that we need to spend billions to fund a war with no clear objective or end game. They needed a replacement war for Afghanistan to continue funding their supporters. It will just go on and on until Russia decides how it ends. Does Russia escalate? What happens then? The US must already have advisors in Ukraine to train them on how to use the defense systems that are being sent despite lies about it. Sound familiar? When that doesn't work, what then? Creeping escalation for over years as in Vietnam? American should have learned by now that there is nothing to gain and much to be lost from intervening in these regional conflicts which can't be won through military intervention and with no clear objective or means to bring about an end. Our corrupt politicians understand all this. They are not sending this money for any cause or objective, however. They want to gain access to the money and funnel it to the military contractors who kick back the funding to their campaigns, relatives, and cronies. Conducting war is an enormous source of power to them.
You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US?
I thought it was likely that this would go way over your head. Yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack in the US, but why did it happen? The US wanted to stay out of WW2 and comunicated the wrong message to the Japanese. That's why it happened!
-
Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.
Who said anything about arming Taiwan. If China invades Taiwan, America will take military action to help them. That's policy! That, the potential threat of nuclear conflict and the economic interests of China in America is what deters XI.
Where can I find this policy?
Every time Biden says we’ll defend Taiwan, his administration walks it back.
White House once again walks back Biden's promise to defend Taiwan, says there is no 'policy change'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-once-again-walks-back-bidens-promise-defend-taiwan-says-no-policy-change
My broader point is that I don’t see how what we’re doing with Ukraine factors into China’s policies towards Taiwan.
As long as the status quo holds (Taiwan remains partially independent and no foriegn military bases on their soil) there’s no reason for China to invade them.
-
Yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack in the US, but why did it happen? The US wanted to stay out of WW2 and comunicated the wrong message to the Japanese. That's why it happened!
That's a little too simplistic. Here's a more detailed explanation:
Japan had been modernising its economy throughout the 20th century and wanted to build an empire of its own. However, Japan lacked the natural resources to make it a reality, with all but 6% of its oil supply being imported. After capturing Manchuria, Japan became bogged down in a full-scale war with China in 1937 and had to look elsewhere for the resources it needed to fight. Meanwhile, the USA was slowly awakening from its isolationism.
When Japan occupied French Indochina in 1941, America retaliated by freezing all Japanese assets in the states, preventing Japan from purchasing oil. Having lost 94% of its oil supply and unwilling to submit to U.S demands, Japan planned to take the oil needed by force. However, striking south into British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies would almost certainly provoke an armed U.S response. To blunt that response, Japan decided to attack the U.S Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, hoping that the U.S would negotiate peace.
The attack at Pearl Harbor was a huge gamble, but one which did not pay off. Though Japan took its objectives in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the U.S did not respond as expected. Instead of reverting to isolationism, the U.S geared up for total war and Japan's fate was sealed.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-did-japan-attack-pearl-harbor
It's not comparable to our policies towards Ukraine. The US began trying to help Ukraine pivot away from Russia's economic and political influence during Obama's second term. We began arming and training Ukraine in 2017 after Trump took office. Putin viewed US/NATO meddling in Ukraine as escalatory. Our actions didn't deter him.
With all that said, I still view Putin as a rational actor. Ukraine isn't a NATO member state so he can screw with them but he's not going to screw with NATO.
As far as China goes, if we're not willing to intervene directly in Ukraine because Russia is a nuclear power, why would China take seriously Biden's vow to intervene to help Taiwan? China is a nuclear power and dominates global trade. A war between the US and China wouldn't be painless for Americans and the worst-case scenario is that it could lead to nuclear war...
-
You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US?
I thought it was likely that this would go way over your head. Yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack in the US, but why did it happen? The US wanted to stay out of WW2 and comunicated the wrong message to the Japanese. That's why it happened!
Things must be slow in "Europe" today. Have you been reading the news about current events in Texas etc.? Of course, FDR, like all modern American politicians actually wanted America in the war despite running on a platform to keep us out of the war. He sent massive quantities of weapons to the UK before Pearl Harbor. That is where your stupid analogy ends. The situation in Ukraine is night and day different than Pearl Harbor. The US has no direct interest in what happens in Ukraine. There is no direct threat to the US from Russia. From an emotional perspective, many people sympathize with Ukraine for being attacked. But there is no strategic reason to become involved in their regional conflict. "Europe" certainly has come to that conclusion and limited its involvement. There is no reason for Russia to attack the US. The only scenario where the US comes into direct conflict with Russia is through involvement in this regional conflict with the likelihood of gradual escalation as it extends indefinitely with no way to end the war through military means alone. There is no clear objective or basis to bring the war to an end. Just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It will just go on and on. We will be told things are going well. Just another year, more money and victory is at hand. When all is said and done Ukraine will be in ruins, trillions will have been spent for no purpose, and the final settlement will be no different than if they had pulled out today.
-
Things must be slow in "Europe" today. Have you been reading the news about current events in Texas etc.? Of course, FDR, like all modern American politicians actually wanted America in the war despite running on a platform to keep us out of the war. He sent massive quantities of weapons to the UK before Pearl Harbor. That is where your stupid analogy ends. The situation in Ukraine is night and day different than Pearl Harbor. The US has no direct interest in what happens in Ukraine. There is no direct threat to the US from Russia. From an emotional perspective, many people sympathize with Ukraine for being attacked. But there is no strategic reason to become involved in their regional conflict. "Europe" certainly has come to that conclusion and limited its involvement. There is no reason for Russia to attack the US. The only scenario where the US comes into direct conflict with Russia is through involvement in this regional conflict with the likelihood of gradual escalation as it extends indefinitely with no way to end the war through military means alone. There is no clear objective or basis to bring the war to an end. Just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It will just go on and on. We will be told things are going well. Just another year, more money and victory is at hand. When all is said and done Ukraine will be in ruins, trillions will have been spent for no purpose, and the final settlement will be no different than if they had pulled out today.
Things must be slow in "Europe" today.
Yes they are. I just went for a walk with the dogs and there were no armed idiots in the street at all. Everything is nice and peaceful. Not so much in my home town in the USA where in the past 24 hours six shootings took place and several innocent people got killed, and guess what, they were not even praying.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as-russia-bombs-ukraine-s-infrastructure-its-own-services-crumble/ar-AA15E3CL?ocid=Peregrine&cvid=4f2eea18f45f4395957e0fd773f8ee49
In late October, two sewer pipes burst in the southern city of Volgograd, flooding several streets with feces and waste water, and leaving 200,000 of the 1 million residents without water or heating for several days.
Ilya Kravchenko, a local lawmaker who collected testimony from more than 1,000 victims of the incident and filed a lawsuit against the corporation that owns the sewer system, said the sight was “not pretty.”
“This is the worst year on record. The city has never had so many problems,” Kravchenko said.
I'm not certain that's an accurate statement. The city's former name was Stalingrad. Pretty big problems exactly 80 years ago today. Although the worst of the problems were to be soon sorted out.
There once was a time when the Russian army held the admiration of the world. And not just for its power. But also for fighting in a good cause. Not anymore.
Note: Yes, yes yes, I know, the "Soviet Army", not the "Russian Army".
-
Looks like the Russians are now pushing the war The allies invaded Russia after WW 1 There was never an acknowledgment in american media that Russia/Soviet Union were responsible for 80 percent of Nazi deaths They were demonized immediately after Yalta so I am not clear when this respected Russian army occurred?
-
How long can people believe in the benevolence of American politicians and Armies when there are zero historical examples
-
How long can people believe in the benevolence of American politicians and Armies when there are zero historical examples
The Russians are undoubtedly in the moral wrong in this war. Not every wrong can or should be righted by the US military, though. And you are correct that are many instances of US politicians promoting lies to fund endless wars under false pretenses (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq). Sadly only two modern US presidents kept the US out of wars (Eisenhower getting us out of Korea and Trump laying the policy groundwork to end the endless war in Afghanistan). It is overstatement, however, to suggest that the US military. has never done any good. The US did provide substantial support to Russia during WWII (and Russia was arguably as bad as Germany in that it invaded Poland as well in 1939 and committed all manner of atrocities). The US military did liberate western Europe from the Nazis and provide a buffer from future Communist aggression. Defeating the Japanese in the Pacific and Asia laid the groundwork to end decades of colonization and abuse of those regions by Europe and others.
-
The Russians are undoubtedly in the moral wrong in this war. Not every wrong can or should be righted by the US military, though. And you are correct that are many instances of US politicians promoting lies to fund endless wars under false pretenses (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq). Sadly only two modern US presidents kept the US out of wars (Eisenhower getting us out of Korea and Trump laying the policy groundwork to end the endless war in Afghanistan). It is overstatement, however, to suggest that the US military. has never done any good. The US did provide substantial support to Russia during WWII (and Russia was arguably as bad as Germany in that it invaded Poland as well in 1939 and committed all manner of atrocities). The US military did liberate western Europe from the Nazis and provide a buffer from future Communist aggression. Defeating the Japanese in the Pacific and Asia laid the groundwork to end decades of colonization and abuse of those regions by Europe and others.
We won WWII with the help of the Soviets who lost over 20 million people in the war. The Soviets helped on Pacific front too along with Mao's China.
We created a buffer in eastern Europe and beat the Soviets to the moon with the help of former Nazis.
We won the Cold War (against the Soviets) with the help of Communist China.
We helped Islamic extremists (who later created Al Qaeda and the Taliban) drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
In Libya and Syria, we backed Islamic extremists in their attempts to overthrow secular Arab dictators.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, we've helped Ukraine, one of the most corrupt countries in Europe (and the world), counter Russia's attacks on their national sovereignty.
I raise these examples to make the point that this stuff in America's recent history isn't always morally clear or Black and White. Often times, our leaders have collaborated with bad guys to take down other bad guys. And often times, there have been unintended consequences of our policies.
-
The Russians are undoubtedly in the moral wrong in this war. Not every wrong can or should be righted by the US military, though. And you are correct that are many instances of US politicians promoting lies to fund endless wars under false pretenses (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq). Sadly only two modern US presidents kept the US out of wars (Eisenhower getting us out of Korea and Trump laying the policy groundwork to end the endless war in Afghanistan). It is overstatement, however, to suggest that the US military. has never done any good. The US did provide substantial support to Russia during WWII (and Russia was arguably as bad as Germany in that it invaded Poland as well in 1939 and committed all manner of atrocities). The US military did liberate western Europe from the Nazis and provide a buffer from future Communist aggression. Defeating the Japanese in the Pacific and Asia laid the groundwork to end decades of colonization and abuse of those regions by Europe and others.
I think the people in Germany, Japan, South Korea and other places around the world are thankful for the American military and efforts that freed their countries from tyranny. And many more are thankful today for that continued presence that keeps them free. Taiwan, Ukraine, South Korea for example.
The claim that America power has never done any good cannot withstand the scrutiny of history.
The Soviets lost so many people because they were allied with Hitler and then were caught unprepared when he invaded it. And they didn't give a damned about the suffering of their people. They just let them be slaughtered. Without American military help they never would have defeated Hitler. The Red Army was a collection of murderers and rapists that other than the Nazis, were probably the most evil military in world history. I'll thank the Russian people for their sacrifice but the government and the Red Army deserve none. Stalin deserve credit? The rapists in the Red Army? Like hell.
-
"Bloodlands", the history of Eastern Europe before and after WWII by historian Timothy Snyder:
"Snyder seeks to show that interaction between the Nazi and Soviet regimes is crucial to telling the story of this bloodshed. He posits that early Soviet support for the Warsaw Uprising against the Nazi occupation was followed by an unwillingness to aid the uprising because the Soviets were willing to have the Nazis eliminate potential sources of resistance to a later Soviet occupation. Snyder states that this is an example of interaction that may have led to many more deaths than might have been the case if each regime had been acting independently."
The Soviets allowed, indeed welcomed, the Nazis slaughter of the people in Eastern Europe in order to make it easier for them to occupy those nations later.
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.a5c207c03a8ecd97c001e240ff048919?rik=wfL8yx7Cm9AvZw&riu=http%3a%2f%2f3.bp.blogspot.com%2f-x6rh7dwRWoc%2fTZDyhbbjC_I%2fAAAAAAAABDU%2fJArT6bNZyxs%2fs1600%2fbloodlandsweb.jpg&ehk=%2feyLuLBsby75CUr4MXOLLjQeRn%2bY96uQyu1G%2bzSgA3M%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
-
I think the people in Germany, Japan, South Korea and other places around the world are thankful for the American military and efforts that freed their countries from tyranny. And many more are thankful today for that continued presence that keeps them free. Taiwan, Ukraine, South Korea for example.
The claim that America power has never done any good cannot withstand the scrutiny of history.
I see that you omitted Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.
I agree that we've used our power for good at times. Where we probably disagree is on the intentions of our policies.
I don't think any nation, including the US, does things abroad for purely altruistic reasons. There's always a catch or benefit to our own geopolitical goals.
As for Ukraine and Europe overall, do you think our policies are entirely altruistic? Or is the policy part of a broader strategy to keep Europe dependent on the US (which economically benefits us)? It could be a mix of both.
I just find it hard to believe that the fact that we're benefitting economically from Europe's economic woes (due to their de-coupling economically from Russia) is a coincidence or accident.
Politico: Europe accuses US of profiting from war
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-europe-ukraine-gas-inflation-reduction-act-ira-joe-biden-rift-west-eu-accuses-us-of-profiting-from-war/
-
My comments were generally aimed at US wars after WW 2
-
In Libya and Syria, we backed Islamic extremists in their attempts to overthrow secular Arab dictators.
Both enjoyed significant popular support for dictators
-
The Russians are undoubtedly in the moral wrong in this war.
-
The Russians are undoubtedly in the moral wrong in this war.
I am not sure what this is based on Maybe I can ask what the problem was with Ukraine remaining militarily neutral? Generally, in response I would hear the right of self determination Did Cuba enjoy this right in 61 The right of self defense in the UN only mentions massing troops on the border of a threatened nation The sovereignty of the Donabas was in limbo with the failures of Western Ukraine, and other western nations failing to live up to the Minsk agreements The W Ukrainians massed tens of thousands of troops on their border with the Donbas prior to February 2022 They were already responsible for some 13,000 civilian deaths since 2014 There was already a crisis prior to February
-
I am not sure what this is based on Maybe I can ask what the problem was with Ukraine remaining militarily neutral? Generally, in response I would hear the right of self determination Did Cuba enjoy this right in 61 The right of self defense in the UN only mentions massing troops on the border of a threatened nation The sovereignty of the Donabas was in limbo with the failures of Western Ukraine, and other western nations failing to live up to the Minsk agreements The W Ukrainians massed tens of thousands of troops on their border with the Donbas prior to February 2022 They were already responsible for some 13,000 civilian deaths since 2014 There was already a crisis prior to February
Ukraine can ask to join NATO if they want. It's unlikely that their wish will be granted. It only takes one veto and several NATO countries are hard "NO's" on allowing Ukraine to join.
But the US under President Bush in 2008 and Biden in 2021 extended an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, which obviously was viewed as a provocation in Russia. Still, I don't think the NATO issue, nor the civil war in Ukraine justify Putin's 2022 invasion.
My guess is, Putin thought he could quickly get Ukraine to capitulate to his demands. Now he's caught in a quagmire of his own making because he miscalculated. None of that absolves the US of things we've done to provoke Russia over the last decade or so. But I just don't think this war was necessary or unavoidable for Putin.
-
I wouldn't call it a quagmire, nor would I phrase all action as coming from Putin Russia has already won back the areas they were concerned about They do want to ensure Ukraine cannot threaten them again, and that may be a long and deadly road for Ukraine And the American public who support this war, can live in yet another of their fantasy bubbles imagining our military helps nations instead of destroying them
-
Russian forces appear close to making significant gains in eastern Ukraine while Kyiv prepares for a possible new offensive from their north:
As battles rage, Russia likely controls Ukraine’s Soledar: UK
Russian forces likely control the eastern Ukrainian town Soledar, in the Donetsk region, having advanced for the past four days, according to the British defence ministry.
A daily update by the ministry said on Tuesday said capturing Soledar is “likely an effort to envelop Bakhmut”, the highly contested city 10km (6 miles) away, where both sides have suffered heavy losses.
The defence ministry added: “Part of the fighting has focused on entrances to the 200km-long [124-mile] disused salt mine tunnels which run underneath the district. Both sides are likely concerned that they could be used for infiltration behind their lines”.
According to Ukrainian journalist Yuriy Butusov, in Soledar, Russian forces have established fire control over the main Ukrainian supply route to the town.
“This is not a complete encirclement, but normal supply along the route is impossible, [and] this is critical for defence,” he said.
Seizing Bakhmut would allow Moscow’s troops to advance to two more prominent cities, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk.
In his late-night address on Monday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Bakhmut and Soledar were holding on despite intense attacks.
“Everything is completely destroyed, there is almost no life left,” he said.
“The whole land near Soledar is covered with the corpses of the occupiers and scars from the strikes.
“This is what madness looks like.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/10/russian-forces-likely-control-soledar-british-defence-ministry
-
Russian forces appear close to making significant gains in eastern Ukraine while Kyiv prepares for a possible new offensive from their north:
As battles rage, Russia likely controls Ukraine’s Soledar: UK
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/10/russian-forces-likely-control-soledar-british-defence-ministry
I wouldn't call that a serious gain. Not compared to the serious Ukrainian gains of during the last 8 months around Kharkiv and Kherson. Russia has been totally done with large gains of territory since April. Since then, they have been grimly hanging on, with very small gains on small sections here or there, with occasional much larger collapses of a front. Since April, their territorial gains have been much smaller than the Ukrainian gains. Half the territory that Russia seized in 2022 has already been taken back by Ukraine. The tide is clearly going against Russia.
Saying Russia has some loses, but also some gains, implying it's going back and forth, is like saying Germany in 1944/1945 had some loses, but also some gains. The German advances in 1944/1944, counter attacks in Eastern Prussia, counter attacks in the Battle of the Bulge, were totally eclipsed by the huge Soviet and Western Allies advances during that period. By more than a 100 to 1 ratio.
I get the impression that this winter is so mild, for Ukraine, that significant advances by either side will be unlikely until May or June, with both sides being bogged down by the mud. But I think that before the summer is out, Russia will lose the Crimea land bridge and Crimea itself. We shall see.
Can Putin survive the lose of Crimea? That is, stay in office? Or even survive? I doubt it. Makes no difference. He will be replaced by someone just as bad. But able to rally the Russians to go on any further large adventures? I doubt it.
-
I wouldn't call that a serious gain. Not compared to the serious Ukrainian gains of during the last 8 months around Kharkiv and Kherson. Russia has been totally done with large gains of territory since April. Since then, they have been grimly hanging on, with very small gains on small sections here or there, with occasional much larger collapses of a front. Since April, their territorial gains have been much smaller than the Ukrainian gains. Half the territory that Russia seized in 2022 has already been taken back by Ukraine. The tide is clearly going against Russia.
Saying Russia has some loses, but also some gains, implying it's going back and forth, is like saying Germany in 1944/1945 had some loses, but also some gains. The German advances in 1944/1944, counter attacks in Eastern Prussia, counter attacks in the Battle of the Bulge, were totally eclipsed by the huge Soviet and Western Allies advances during that period. By more than a 100 to 1 ratio.
I get the impression that this winter is so mild, for Ukraine, that significant advances by either side will be unlikely until May or June, with both sides being bogged down by the mud. But I think that before the summer is out, Russia will lose the Crimea land bridge and Crimea itself. We shall see.
Can Putin survive the lose of Crimea? That is, stay in office? Or even survive? I doubt it. Makes no difference. He will be replaced by someone just as bad. But able to rally the Russians to go on any further large adventures? I doubt it.
The best site (for me) on this is the Institute for Understanding the Study of War (I got their name wrong): https://www.understandingwar.org/
They report this on Soledar: "Russian forces have not captured the entirety of Soledar despite several false Russian claims that the city has fallen and that Bakhmut risks imminent encirclement. Several Russian sources claimed that Wagner Group forces advanced into the west of Soledar on January 10.[18] Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin refuted these claims, remarking that Wagner Group forces are still fighting against concerted Ukrainian resistance.[19] ISW has only observed visual confirmation of Wagner Group forces in central Soledar as of January 10.[20] The reality of block-by-block control of terrain in Soledar is obfuscated by the dynamic nature of urban combat, however, and Russian forces have largely struggled to make significant tactical gains in the Soledar area for months. Even taking the most generous Russian claims at face value,"
What's interesting is they claim Russian forces are increasingly having to use professional/private armies - essentially hiring people, e.g., the Wagner Group - to conduct significant offensive operations. The raw recruits are used for defensive operations only and are incapable of anything more.
-
The best site (for me) on this is the Institute for Understanding War: https://www.understandingwar.org/
They report this on Soledar: "Russian forces have not captured the entirety of Soledar despite several false Russian claims that the city has fallen and that Bakhmut risks imminent encirclement. Several Russian sources claimed that Wagner Group forces advanced into the west of Soledar on January 10.[18] Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin refuted these claims, remarking that Wagner Group forces are still fighting against concerted Ukrainian resistance.[19] ISW has only observed visual confirmation of Wagner Group forces in central Soledar as of January 10.[20] The reality of block-by-block control of terrain in Soledar is obfuscated by the dynamic nature of urban combat, however, and Russian forces have largely struggled to make significant tactical gains in the Soledar area for months. Even taking the most generous Russian claims at face value,"
What's interesting is they claim Russian forces are increasingly having to use professional/private armies - essentially hiring people, e.g., the Wagner Group - to conduct significant offensive operations. The raw recruits are used for defensive operations only and are incapable of anything more.
Yes. The Wagner Group seems to be the most effective army force that Russia has. And I am sure you would agree, that does not make the Wagner Group an effective military force. I don't think it is the Wagner Group or the regular army that is holding the Ukrainians back now. I think it is the mud. With this mild winter, the mud might not ever really go away this winter. And, even if there is a cold snap, winter is not the ideal time for an offensive.
But when the ground finally dries out in the early summer, around May or June, we will see how effective the Wagner Group and the Regular Russian army with it's fresh and largely untrained and ill-equipted draftees fare against the NATO trained (this winter) Ukrainians. I don't think very well. The Kharkiv offensive of last September is a foreshadowing of things to come.
-
Russian lost Kherson, a city with a population of 280,000 (pre-war 2020). It was the only administration center of an Oblast (sort of like a U. S. state) that Russia captured in 2022. It was abandoned by the Russians within a few days of the U. S. elections in November (don't want to hurt the Pro-Trump candidates). So they needed something to offset the loss of that city, for the Russian public.
The Russians believed they could take Bakhmut, a town of 70,000 (pre-war 2020). So the Russian media made Bakhmut the litmus test of how effective the Russian military force is. But it appears that they won't take that place.
So now they have turned to Soledar, a town of 10,000 (pre-war 2020), to make that their new litmus test. Some sources claim it has been taken, but it appears it is still contested.
If the Russians fail to take Soledar, I expect the Russian media will soon be talking about how they are on the verge of taking some town of 3,000. The Russians believe they will soon take some city or town of decisive importance this winter. They just don't know yet which one it will be. Perhaps it won't be a town. Maybe it will be a house in Bakhmut or Soledar, which will be declared as the "Pavlov house" of 2023.
-
The best site (for me) on this is the Institute for Understanding War: https://www.understandingwar.org/
They report this on Soledar: "Russian forces have not captured the entirety of Soledar despite several false Russian claims that the city has fallen and that Bakhmut risks imminent encirclement. Several Russian sources claimed that Wagner Group forces advanced into the west of Soledar on January 10.[18] Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin refuted these claims, remarking that Wagner Group forces are still fighting against concerted Ukrainian resistance.[19] ISW has only observed visual confirmation of Wagner Group forces in central Soledar as of January 10.[20] The reality of block-by-block control of terrain in Soledar is obfuscated by the dynamic nature of urban combat, however, and Russian forces have largely struggled to make significant tactical gains in the Soledar area for months. Even taking the most generous Russian claims at face value,"
What's interesting is they claim Russian forces are increasingly having to use professional/private armies - essentially hiring people, e.g., the Wagner Group - to conduct significant offensive operations. The raw recruits are used for defensive operations only and are incapable of anything more.
There have been no official announcements from the Russian side but the city of Soledar appears to be mostly under Russian control. There may be a few hundred Ukrainian troops left in the Salt Mine area.
Bakhmut is close to being surrounded. Russian forces are advancing from the north and south of the city.
Russia's army would not win a Ground war against a NATO country but Ukraine isn't a NATO country. Ukraine would've lost this war months ago if not for the intelligence sharing and military aid they've gotten from the US and other NATO countries.
And yet still, they're losing territory and suffering huge numbers of casualties.
The best case scenario for Ukraine in this war is to fight Russia to a stalemate. Anyone who thinks Ukraine alone can militarily force Russia to withdraw from Ukraine is delusional in my honest opinion.
-
Russian lost Kherson, a city with a population of 280,000 (pre-war 2020). It was the only administration center of an Oblast (sort of like a U. S. state) that Russia captured in 2022. It was abandoned by the Russians within a few days of the U. S. elections in November (don't want to hurt the Pro-Trump candidates). So they needed something to offset the loss of that city, for the Russian public.
Ukraine lost Kherson within the first few weeks of the war. Russia took the city relatively easier than other cities in eastern Ukraine. There's some evidence that the local officials in Kherson simply switched sides early on which is part of why the city was captured by Russia so quickly.
As for the Russian withdrawal, it happened because Russia's commanders wanted to leave Kherson city. After Ukraine was given HIMAR launchers, it became too difficult for Russia to supply their forces on the west side of the river in Kherson. So it's more accurate to say that Russia surrendered the city due to the logistics problems. They weren't driven out by Ukrainian ground forces (who failed in dozens of attempts take Kherson between the summer and fall).
Soledar and Bakhmut reportedly are major logistics hubs for Ukrainian forces. Losing those cities will make it more difficult for Ukraine's supply lines on the eastern front. There are also reportedly miles of underground tunnels in that area which the Russians can use to support their logistics in Ukraine and hide equipment from spy western satellites.
The battles for those two cities have been costly for both sides. I doubt that Ukraine would sacrifice so many troops to defend them if they were insignificant targets.
-
Great quote from Yevgeny Prigozhin—who heads up the Wagner Group:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-state-tv-says-country-needs-morale-boost-alone-against-the-world/ar-AA16dq93?ocid=Peregrine&cvid=7691b5ba978a40059e5cf27606f13afe
"Units of the Wagner private military company have taken the entire territory of Soledar under their control. The city center has been surrounded, and urban warfare is under way. The number of captives will be announced tomorrow," the statement read, according to the Tass readout.
Urban warfare is still under way? So, it appears that Soledar has been totally taken by the Wagner group, but a lot of fighting has broken out among the victorious Russian troops who now occupy the town. Well, what do you expect from a bunch of convicts?
-
So as VP Old Joe visited Ukraine SIX times as VP. He was apparently so interested in Ukraine that he made a visit there on his last day as VP. Such interest in that country. And it had nothing do with his son being paid millions from that country. Just a coincidence. He was tirelessly promoting democracy even when leaving office. And the classified documents he left in his private office had something to do with - guess who - Ukraine. LOL. And we are supposed to believe that six years after leaving office as VP that Biden's lawyers just decided one day to look through some boxes of papers locked in that office. They had nothing better to do and surprise! They found some classified documents. But they don't announce this to the public until two months after the election. In fact, they don't announce or explain it at all. The corruption and legal double standard are astounding. Trump would have been impeached and imprisoned by now if he had done anything like this.
-
So as VP Old Joe visited Ukraine SIX times as VP. He was apparently so interested in Ukraine that he made a visit there on his last day as VP. Such interest in that country. And it had nothing do with his son being paid millions from that country. Just a coincidence. He was tirelessly promoting democracy even when leaving office. And the classified documents he left in his private office had something to do with - guess who - Ukraine. LOL. And we are supposed to believe that six years after leaving office as VP that Biden's lawyers just decided one day to look through some boxes of papers locked in that office. They had nothing better to do and surprise! They found some classified documents. But they don't announce this to the public until two months after the election. In fact, they don't announce or explain it at all. The corruption and legal double standard are astounding. Trump would have been impeached and imprisoned by now if he had done anything like this.
Do I believe the documents were just discovered? Yes, I do. Biden might want the discovery hidden until after the election. But getting his lawyers to sign off on this? I don't think so. They would be subject to disbarment or worse if they didn't hand in the documents immediately.
Vice President Biden visiting Ukraine six times does not sound suspicious either. Ukraine was clearly menaced by Russia. And this became particularly clear during 2014. I wish the Obama administration had done more during 2014-2016. But we, in part, made up for lost time during January 2020 through February 2021, at least just enough to allow Ukraine to somehow to hold off the Russians.
-
Do I believe the documents were just discovered? Yes, I do. Biden might want the discovery hidden until after the election. But getting his lawyers to sign off on this? I don't think so. They would be subject to disbarment or worse if they didn't hand in the documents immediately.
Vice President Biden visiting Ukraine six times does not sound suspicious either. Ukraine was clearly menaced by Russia. And this became particularly clear during 2014. I wish the Obama administration had done more during 2014-2016. But we, in part, made up for lost time during January 2020 through February 2021, at least just enough to allow Ukraine to somehow to hold off the Russians.
The Dems knew that the Repubs would start investigating Biden, Inc. after taking over the House. So they instructed Biden's lawyers to conduct a search for the missing classified documents which were then "found" in a closet after six years. They self-reported to avoid being caught in an investigation. Then covered it up until after the election. The lawyers were a tool to fix the problem. They did nothing wrong. It was their client who violated federal law and should go to prison according to his own views expressed about Trump. And you really don't find it strange that on his last day as VP, Biden take a trip to Ukraine? Why? He was on his way out of office the next day, but he travels around the world for some reason. It's all just bad luck. And that "Penn Biden Center" is a classic mafia-like money laundering scam. The corruption associated with that place is almost laughable.
-
Ukraine lost Kherson within the first few weeks of the war. Russia took the city relatively easier than other cities in eastern Ukraine. There's some evidence that the local officials in Kherson simply switched sides early on which is part of why the city was captured by Russia so quickly.
As for the Russian withdrawal, it happened because Russia's commanders wanted to leave Kherson city. After Ukraine was given HIMAR launchers, it became too difficult for Russia to supply their forces on the west side of the river in Kherson. So it's more accurate to say that Russia surrendered the city due to the logistics problems. They weren't driven out by Ukrainian ground forces (who failed in dozens of attempts take Kherson between the summer and fall).
Soledar and Bakhmut reportedly are major logistics hubs for Ukrainian forces. Losing those cities will make it more difficult for Ukraine's supply lines on the eastern front. There are also reportedly miles of underground tunnels in that area which the Russians can use to support their logistics in Ukraine and hide equipment from spy western satellites.
The battles for those two cities have been costly for both sides. I doubt that Ukraine would sacrifice so many troops to defend them if they were insignificant targets.
Kherson would not have been hard to keep supplied, if it was not being effectively attacked by Ukraine. So, yes, the Russians were driven out of Kherson.
The Ukrainians took an even larger slice of territory back near Kharhiv. Was this territory on the wrong side of a river?
How are the Russians going to hold the Crimea when it's not on the wrong side of a river but on the wrong side of a strait, with just one long bridge across it, and a narrow and vulnerable land bridge connection? That will be a neat trick.
The Ukrainians have already taken back half of the territories the Russians took in the first few months of the war in 2022. Look for more of the same in 2023, when the ground dries out. And the Ukrainian soldiers who are now receiving NATO training on combined arms return to the front. While reluctant Russian draftees receive almost no training and have their winter clothes stolen from them.
How many of the 24 Ukrainian Oblast administration centers did Russia take in 2022? Only one, Kherson. How many of these does Russia still control? Zero.
Any city of 70,000 or 10,000 could be called "a major communication hub". Name me one city that isn't?
Soledar is strategic because of it's tunnels? It could be used to store ammunition? Yes, it would be a great place. A huge ammunition dump right on the front line, where a minor advance by Ukraine allows the Ukrainian army to capture it and use the ammunition themselves. And how about the job of a Russian truck driver. Driving a Russian truck filled with artillery ammunition right up to the Ukrainian front line. Yes, this makes total sense. I can see how taking Soledar would be an immediate strategic victory for Russia that they can start taking advantage of right away. Soledar won't be useful until Soledar is taken and the Russians are able to drive the Ukrainians back many more miles from there, something we don't see anything like that remotely happening.
Bakhmut and Soledar are strategically important because they happen to lie on the Ukrainian side of the front where it ended up being established when Ukraine managed to stop the Russian offensives this year. Nothing more. The Russians are just looking for some sort of victory to present to the Russian people to offset the major loss of territory in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.
-
So as VP Old Joe visited Ukraine SIX times as VP. He was apparently so interested in Ukraine that he made a visit there on his last day as VP. Such interest in that country. And it had nothing do with his son being paid millions from that country. Just a coincidence.
Not coincidental in the sense that President Obama delegated Ukraine policy to Biden. Which doesn't make the Hunter Biden-Ukraine thing look any better of course. It definitely stinks that a Ukrainian oligarch gave the Vice President's son a lucrative job.
But aside from that, Obama was focused more on Iran, Syria, and Cuba in his second term and largely delegated Ukraine to Biden. Obama resisted bi-partisan calls to send weapons to Ukraine while Biden supported arming Ukraine.
Obama I think primarily focused on securing the Iran Nuclear Deal, which meant he needed to work with Vladimir Putin because Russia is on the UN Security Council. The Iran deal also affected Obama's Syria policies.
Long story short, there's nothing obviously bad about Biden's involvement with Ukraine as Obama's VP. But Hunter Biden's job with the Ukrainian energy company still looks like a clear conflict of interest and it shouldn't have happened.
-
Not coincidental in the sense that President Obama delegated Ukraine policy to Biden. Which doesn't make the Hunter Biden-Ukraine thing look any better of course. It definitely stinks that a Ukrainian oligarch gave the Vice President's son a lucrative job.
But aside from that, Obama was focused more on Iran, Syria, and Cuba in his second term and largely delegated Ukraine to Biden. Obama resisted bi-partisan calls to send weapons to Ukraine while Biden supported arming Ukraine.
Obama I think primarily focused on securing the Iran Nuclear Deal, which meant he needed to work with Vladimir Putin because Russia is on the UN Security Council. The Iran deal also affected Obama's Syria policies.
Long story short, there's nothing obviously bad about Biden's involvement with Ukraine as Obama's VP. But Hunter Biden's job with the Ukrainian energy company still looks like a clear conflict of interest and it shouldn't have happened.
And what could Biden accomplish on his last day as VP in Ukraine? So important he had travel there. He was on his way out. He had no power or authority to do anything more on behalf of the US government at that point. He was to become a private citizen the next day. This stinks to the heavens. He is a corrupt bureaucrat whose family has made millions peddling influence. Has he committed a crime or treason? Maybe. If so, he has a lot of company among our current establishment in including Pelosi and McConnell.
-
Kherson would not have been hard to keep supplied, if it was not being effectively attacked by Ukraine. So, yes, the Russians were driven out of Kherson.
That's debatable. I mean, it's possible that the Russian Generals felt that the 20-30,000 troops they had on the west side of Kherson would be of better use in other parts of the Theater where they had manpower shortages a few months ago. I wouldn't rule it out. The manpower shortages are the reason Putin called up 300,000 conscripts around the time of the Kherson withdrawal.
But it's also possible that the Russians told the truth. That they withdrew because the supplying their troops on the west side of the river became too difficult once Ukraine was given long-range artillery systems.
Either way, we know based on reports in the Western Press that Ukrainian offensives in the Kherson region mostly failed. Kherson was nothing like the northern offensives. The Kherson region is mostly flat Plains. Very few areas for troops to hide from drones and artillery. So the Ukrainians suffered heavy losses in their failed ground attacks in Kherson.
Wounded Ukrainian soldiers reveal steep toll of Kherson offensive
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/07/ukraine-kherson-offensive-casualties-ammunition/
"Russia’s Orlan drones exposed Ukrainian positions from more than a kilometer above their heads, they said, an altitude that meant they never heard the buzz of the aircraft tracking their movements.
Russian tanks emerged from newly built cement fortifications to blast infantry with large-caliber artillery, the wounded Ukrainian soldiers said. The vehicles would then shrink back beneath the concrete shelters, shielded from mortar and rocket fire.
Counter-battery radar systems automatically detected and located Ukrainians who were targeting the Russians with projectiles, unleashing a barrage of artillery fire in response.
Russian hacking tools hijacked the drones of Ukrainian operators, who saw their aircraft drift away helplessly behind enemy lines."
The Ukrainians took an even larger slice of territory back near Kharhiv. Was this territory on the wrong side of a river?
No. The Russians simply were severely outnumbered by Ukrainian forces in the Kharkiv region. Different circumstances there.
How are the Russians going to hold the Crimea when it's not on the wrong side of a river but on the wrong side of a strait, with just one long bridge across it, and a narrow and vulnerable land bridge connection? That will be a neat trick.
Crimea is a peninsula with a large naval base, air bases, anti-aircraft defenses, etc. And most Russians have long viewed Crimea as part of Russia. Meaning, it's a non-starter for Putin to give up Crimea they way he gave up Kharkiv and Kherson City.
Most Russians support peace talks but reject return of Crimea, poll finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/13/russian-poll-peace-crimea/
"Seventy-eight percent of Russians said it would be unacceptable to return Crimea to Ukraine, while 66 percent said the same of the eastern Donbas region, which remains occupied by Russian forces and their Ukrainian allies."
Soledar is strategic because of it's tunnels?
Bakhmut and Soledar are strategically important because they happen to lie on the Ukrainian side of the front where it ended up being established when Ukraine managed to stop the Russian offensives this year.
Soledar and Bakhmut are important logistics hubs for Ukrainian military in eastern Ukraine. Losing those towns/cities makes it more difficult for Ukraine to launch a new offensive in the East. It puts them on the Defensive.
Of course, I could be wrong but if those cities are so unimportant, why has Ukraine sacrificed thousands of troops to hold them? It makes more sense to withdraw from areas that aren't worth defending and can easily be taken back later. But instead, we've watched Ukrainian forces suffer massive casualties defending the Bakhmut-Soledar region over the last few months. Seems like it's more important to Ukraine than you think.
-
No. The Russians simply were severely outnumbered by Ukrainian forces in the Kharkiv region. Different circumstances there.
Why is it that it's the Russians who find themselves severely outnumbered. Or more accurately, the number of Russians willing to fight were severely outnumbered by the number of Ukrainians willing to fight. Why is it that since mid-summer 2022, it's the Ukrainians who make the big gains, capturing hundreds of square miles at a time, with minimal artillery support, with minimal casualties, while the Russians can only gain a few yards a day, and need massive artillery to do that, while taking heavy casualties.
Where is the equivalent Russian victories in the last six months comparable to the Ukrainian victories to the east of Kharkiv and at Kherson? Answer, there are none. Why? Because Russia is losing the war.
What is the glue that holds the Russian army together? It's not the Wagner group. It's the mud. And the mud is not going to last forever. In 2023, we will see the sort of advances from Ukraine that they had in September, when there was no mud to bog down the Ukrainians.
Why can Ukrainians hold on the the far side of a river, like at Bakhmut, but Russians can't, like at Kherson?
Crimea is a peninsula with a large naval base, air bases, anti-aircraft defenses, etc. And most Russians have long viewed Crimea as part of Russia. Meaning, it's a non-starter for Putin to give up Crimea they way he gave up Kharkiv and Kherson City.
Most Russians support peace talks but reject return of Crimea, poll finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/13/russian-poll-peace-crimea/
"Seventy-eight percent of Russians said it would be unacceptable to return Crimea to Ukraine, while 66 percent said the same of the eastern Donbas region, which remains occupied by Russian forces and their Ukrainian allies."
Doesn't matter. Holding the far bank of a river at Kherson is child's play compared to holding Crimea. You have to have a way to get supplies into an area to hold it. You have to, or it cannot be held.
How can Russia possible get supplies into Crimea? Only one of two ways:
1. The narrow corridor, called the "Land Bridge" that is just to the north of the Sea of Azov. The Ukrainians should be able to cut that off, possibly capturing a good hunk of the Russian army with it's back to the very shallow Sea of Azov.
2. Across a wide strait to the east, with only one bridge across it, and that bridge is not like the multiple bridges of Kherson, just a few hundred yards long, but many miles long.
If they can't supply an army on the far side of a relatively narrow river, with many crossing points, how are they going to do so across this wide strait?
It's not going to matter if Putin and the Russian people feel they must hold Crimea. If they can't hold it that can't hold it. The Russians will have a far easier time holding the Ukrainian stripe of territory along the Russian border in the Donbas region. That is much easier to supply. Crimea is not going to be so easy.
Soledar and Bakhmut are important logistics hubs for Ukrainian military in eastern Ukraine. Losing those towns/cities makes it more difficult for Ukraine to launch a new offensive in the East. It puts them on the Defensive.
I don't buy the notion that suddenly seizing a thousand square miles of territory in a few days, with few casualties, is of little military import. While seizing, what, five or ten square miles of territory, over a period of weeks, while losing far more casualties, is somehow of much greater import? Nope, I don't buy it.
Of course, I could be wrong but if those cities are so unimportant, why has Ukraine sacrificed thousands of troops to hold them? It makes more sense to withdraw from areas that aren't worth defending and can easily be taken back later. But instead, we've watched Ukrainian forces suffer massive casualties defending the Bakhmut-Soledar region over the last few months. Seems like it's more important to Ukraine than you think.
Why?
1. Because the Russians, making World War I like infantry frontal assaults on trenches, are suffering a lot more casualties than the Ukrainians.
This is not the way to win this war. The way to win the war is to make a sudden decisive breakthrough, that allows your forces to advance many miles in a day, with far fewer casualties, like the Ukrainian September offensive east of Kharkiv. That's the formula that the Russians have not been able to follow since last spring.
2. Because the Russians are hoping for some sort of victory, that can fool the Russians into thinking that they might be able to win the win. Which might inspire hundreds of thousands of Russians to start volunteering for duty at the front. As hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians volunteered last February. This is a fools' hope. But, why give the Russians any air?
-
The US is at $110 billion and counting in this endless war. Old Joe has indicated that more funding will be needed soon. No end in sight. No clear objective or exit strategy. It could go on for years or decades until Ukraine is a pile of rubble. Sound familiar? Someone is getting rich. The Dems don't want any accounting for the money. Nothing to see there. Meanwhile the streets of US cities are overrun with homeless and crime. The education system is broken. The airports are crumbling and in disarray. But the money is flowing to Ukraine with no limits.
-
Why is it that it's the Russians who find themselves severely outnumbered.
Because Ukraine has drafted all their male citizens between the ages of 18 and 60 while Russia has largely limited their conscription to current military reservists or members of their military who were close to the end of their contracts. Until Putin conscripts all of Russia's male population, Ukraine's advantage is manpower. Russia's advantages are artillery and tanks.
So Russia has needed to be more economical with their manpower than Ukraine. In order to defend Kherson, they moved thousands of troops from the north to the southern front. That left areas of Kharkiv inadequately defended so the Ukrainians took advantage of the gaps in Russia's defenses in the northern region.
Holding the far bank of a river at Kherson is child's play compared to holding Crimea. You have to have a way to get supplies into an area to hold it. You have to, or it cannot be held.
How can Russia possible get supplies into Crimea? Only one of two ways:
1. The narrow corridor, called the "Land Bridge" that is just to the north of the Sea of Azov. The Ukrainians should be able to cut that off, possibly capturing a good hunk of the Russian army with it's back to the very shallow Sea of Azov.
2. Across a wide strait to the east, with only one bridge across it, and that bridge is not like the multiple bridges of Kherson, just a few hundred yards long, but many miles long.
3. The naval port of Sevastopol. Russia's Black Sea fleet is based there. (https://www.britannica.com/place/Sevastopol)
Crimea is a pipe dream for Ukraine. It's part of Russia for the forseeable future. I see no circumstance where Putin/Russia withdraws from Crimea.
-
Because Ukraine has drafted all their male citizens between the ages of 18 and 60 while Russia has largely limited their conscription to current military reservists or members of their military who were close to the end of their contracts. Until Putin conscripts all of Russia's male population, Ukraine's advantage is manpower. Russia's advantages are artillery and tanks.
This works because Ukrainians support the war. Many could have fled but have not. Many escorted their families out but then returned when they did not have to. Napoleon said that "Morale is to Material as Three is to One". And the Morale of the Russians in 2023 is clearly not the same as their morale in 1941, or 1812. Or to the morale of the Ukrainians in 2023. Not even close.
So Russia has needed to be more economical with their manpower than Ukraine. In order to defend Kherson, they moved thousands of troops from the north to the southern front. That left areas of Kharkiv inadequately defended so the Ukrainians took advantage of the gaps in Russia's defenses in the northern region.
Russia is not being economical with their troops at Bakhmut nor Soledar. They just want something to make a weak claim that they are making real progress.
Oh, by the way, since the Wagner Group announced that they have taken all of Soledar, they have bombarded Soledar another 93 times and counting.
3. The naval port of Sevastopol. Russia's Black Sea fleet is based there. (https://www.britannica.com/place/Sevastopol)
Doesn't matter. A fleet, like an army, has to be kept supply. Time magazine reported that if the land communications to Crimea are all cut off, the Russian fleet based there will have to sail to Georgia.
Crimea is a pipe dream for Ukraine. It's part of Russia for the forseeable future. I see no circumstance where Putin/Russia withdraws from Crimea.
We were told that Ukraine lasting a month once Russia attacked was a pipe dream. President Zelenskyy announced they must reclaim the Crimea before there can be peace. Zelenskyy has some street cred with me. Unlike those who hold that Russia must inevitably prevail, I think he knows what he is talking about. I think it can be done. Retired U. S. military officers think this can be done, so long as we maintain our supply of material and support. They think that if the thing is pressed, Ukraine will prevail. I say, in the words of Lincoln, "Let the thing be pressed".
I think the notion that Russia is going to magically turn things around, erase 30 years of mismanagement of their military at the snap of the fingers, is a pipe dream.
-
Question:
Will the Russians replace Putin in the near future?
Answer:
No, not a chance. Not by those who want to replace him. They want the loss of the war, the loss of Crimea to occur under Putin's watch, not theirs. But if Crimea falls, his time is nigh.
-
This works because Ukrainians support the war. Many could have fled but have not. Many escorted their families out but then returned when they did not have to. Napoleon said that "Morale is to Material as Three is to One". And the Morale of the Russians in 2023 is clearly not the same as their morale in 1941, or 1812. Or to the morale of the Ukrainians in 2023. Not even close.
Many Ukrainians oppose the war. Not all Ukrainians support the Zelensky government. Not all have been willing to fight against Russia.
It's a young nation that experienced an eight year civil war before Russia's 2022 invasion.
As for morale, it's a mistake to assume that morale isn't high on the Russian side as well. Soldiers on both sides believe they're fighting for a good cause (however misguided the Russian soldiers may be).
"Russian mobilization has worked," he maintained. "It is not true that their problems are so dire that these people will not fight. They will. A tsar tells them to go to war, and they go to war. I've studied the history of the two Chechen wars — it was the same. They may not be that well equipped, but they still present a problem for us." - Head of Ukraine's military
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraines-top-general-no-doubt-russia-will-try-again-kyiv-2022-12
-
Many Ukrainians oppose the war. Not all Ukrainians support the Zelensky government. Not all have been willing to fight against Russia.
Can you name any nation is history where:
* All supported the war?
* All supported the government?
* All were willing to fight against the invader?
I didn't think so.
It's a young nation that experienced an eight year civil war before Russia's 2022 invasion.
It's an old people, with their own language, their own culture. This isn't a land that has been a part of Russia since time immemorial. It's only been ruled by Russia for about 250 years. It was taken over by Katherine the Great. And Katherine the Great was not really all that great. And it's been downhill ever since. Not ruled well. Ruled badly, at times absurdly badly. The Ukrainian famine of the early 1930's which killed millions. Making a pact with Nazi Germany, which, as a result of this pact, and Hitler double crossing Stalin at an opportune moment, resulted in Ukraine being overrun and millions more of it's people killed. Worse than absurdly bad.
As for morale, it's a mistake to assume that morale isn't high on the Russian side as well. Soldiers on both sides believe they're fighting for a good cause (however misguided the Russian soldiers may be).
Clearly not too high on the Russian side. No flocks of hundreds of thousands volunteering for the army. But with flocks of hundreds of thousands of young men fleeing the country. There best units are convicts who have no choice. An army consisting of "The Dirty Dozen" may work in movies but not so in real life.
"Russian mobilization has worked," he maintained. "It is not true that their problems are so dire that these people will not fight. They will. A tsar tells them to go to war, and they go to war. I've studied the history of the two Chechen wars — it was the same. They may not be that well equipped, but they still present a problem for us." - Head of Ukraine's military
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraines-top-general-no-doubt-russia-will-try-again-kyiv-2022-12
If all Russian mobilization can do is result in the capture of Bakhmut and Soledar, before the Russian army suffers the sort of summertime disasters it suffered last September, then the mobilization worked, just not worked very well. We shall see.
-
Can you name any nation is history where:
* All supported the war?
* All supported the government?
* All were willing to fight against the invader?
I didn't think so.
Of course but your comment implied that Ukraine has no problems with morale or dissent. Which is verifiably false.
There's no question that rallying your country against an invading army is easier than rallying your countrymen to invade a foreign country. But Ukraine is a relatively young country with deep political divisions (just like the US during our wars against the British) so it's not reasonable to assume that they're not having any difficulties in getting men to fight or political divisions still.
Clearly not too high on the Russian side. No flocks of hundreds of thousands volunteering for the army. But with flocks of hundreds of thousands of young men fleeing the country. There best units are convicts who have no choice. An army consisting of "The Dirty Dozen" may work in movies but not so in real life.
The commander of Ukraine's armed forces disagrees with your assumptions.
Given his age, I assume he began his military career in the Soviet army and knows some of Russia's military leaders.
If all Russian mobilization can do is result in the capture of Bakhmut and Soledar, before the Russian army suffers the sort of summertime disasters it suffered last September, then the mobilization worked, just not worked very well. We shall see.
Soledar and Bakhmut are almost entirely being managed by the Wagner mercenaries. The newly mobilized forces are being used in other parts of the Theater.
-
Ukraine Could Strike Devastating Blow to Putin as Military Struggles
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-could-strike-devastating-blow-putin-crimea-1773386
This article makes the case, that holding Crimea will be a challenge for Russia.
Are all parts of Ukraine that Russia holds logistically vulnerable? No. There are three regions of Russia that Ukraine occupies.
Region 1:
The strip of land along the border of Russia, About 250 miles long, 50 to 100 miles wide. No portion of this region is more than 100 miles from Russia.
It also has a lot of Russian separatists who lived their.
This is a near ideal region for an invader to hold. No long exposed supply lines leading to the home country. No major waterways to cross with long vulnerable bridges or ferry routes.
If Russia cannot hold this region, or at least a strip that is 50 miles wide, or 20 miles wide, they would really be in a sorry state indeed.
Region 2:
The strip of land along coast of the Sea of Azov, 250 miles long, 60 to 70 miles wide.
Highly vulnerable. Supply columns have not have up to 50 or 100 miles to travel across Ukrainian territory, but up to 250 miles. If this is cut in a couple of places, requiring an advance of just 70 miles, it provides a dangerous trap. With the world's most shallow sea to their back, no evacuation is practicable. The Russia fleet could not help.
Region 3:
Crimea.
If Region 2 is taken, the Crimea Land Bridge, Crimea becomes very vulnerable. All that is needed is a precision missile strike from the north shore of the Azov Sea to take out that bridge. Crimea would be far more cut of than Kherson was three months ago. Not a relatively narrow river with many crossing point, but a wide sea several miles long to cross.
The far more competent Russian army of 1942 was unable to hold Crimea against a German offensive that was, at the time, starting to near it's limits of logistical support. Nor were the Germans able able to hold Crimea once the Russians isolated it in 1944. The Crimea is a classic trap for any defensive army trying to hold it.
Logistics is critical in war. It dictates that Russia should be able to hold Region 1, or at least part of it. But unless they start showing a lot more competence next year, with their new amateur conscript and convict army, than the professional army did last year, I don't think they can hold Regions 2 or 3. We shall see.
This is why President Zelenskyy has made Crimea an objective that Ukraine insists on having before there can be peace. He has good reason to believe that they can take it.
Your average Russian, at least a year ago, didn't know much about Kherson, or Bukhmut, let along Soledar. But they do know about Crimea, the Siege of Sevastopol, the great Russian naval base there, the triumph of Yalta. Putin's hold of power will not survive the lose of Crimea. But until it falls, he's safe. His potential successors want the fall of Crimea to happen under Putin's watch, not theirs.
-
Meanwhile, here in reality, Ukraine may be on the verge of retreating from Bakhmut within the next few days or weeks. And they’re not even fighting the actual Russian army. Russian mercenaries are doing most of the work in Soledar and Bakhmut.
I stand by my view that Ukraine will not militarily defeat Russia. It’s just too difficult a task for them to do alone. Yes, I know we’re giving them a ton of aid but short of the US or NATO intervening directly in the war, I don’t see how Ukraine overcomes the huge odds that are against them.
-
Ukraine Could Strike Devastating Blow to Putin as Military Struggles
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-could-strike-devastating-blow-putin-crimea-1773386
This article makes the case, that holding Crimea will be a challenge for Russia.
Are all parts of Ukraine that Russia holds logistically vulnerable? No. There are three regions of Russia that Ukraine occupies.
Region 1:
The strip of land along the border of Russia, About 250 miles long, 50 to 100 miles wide. No portion of this region is more than 100 miles from Russia.
It also has a lot of Russian separatists who lived their.
This is a near ideal region for an invader to hold. No long exposed supply lines leading to the home country. No major waterways to cross with long vulnerable bridges or ferry routes.
If Russia cannot hold this region, or at least a strip that is 50 miles wide, or 20 miles wide, they would really be in a sorry state indeed.
Region 2:
The strip of land along coast of the Sea of Azov, 250 miles long, 60 to 70 miles wide.
Highly vulnerable. Supply columns have not have up to 50 or 100 miles to travel across Ukrainian territory, but up to 250 miles. If this is cut in a couple of places, requiring an advance of just 70 miles, it provides a dangerous trap. With the world's most shallow sea to their back, no evacuation is practicable. The Russia fleet could not help.
Region 3:
Crimea.
If Region 2 is taken, the Crimea Land Bridge, Crimea becomes very vulnerable. All that is needed is a precision missile strike from the north shore of the Azov Sea to take out that bridge. Crimea would be far more cut of than Kherson was three months ago. Not a relatively narrow river with many crossing point, but a wide sea several miles long to cross.
The far more competent Russian army of 1942 was unable to hold Crimea against a German offensive that was, at the time, starting to near it's limits of logistical support. Nor were the Germans able able to hold Crimea once the Russians isolated it in 1944. The Crimea is a classic trap for any defensive army trying to hold it.
Logistics is critical in war. It dictates that Russia should be able to hold Region 1, or at least part of it. But unless they start showing a lot more competence next year, with their new amateur conscript and convict army, than the professional army did last year, I don't think they can hold Regions 2 or 3. We shall see.
This is why President Zelenskyy has made Crimea an objective that Ukraine insists on having before there can be peace. He has good reason to believe that they can take it.
Your average Russian, at least a year ago, didn't know much about Kherson, or Bukhmut, let along Soledar. But they do know about Crimea, the Siege of Sevastopol, the great Russian naval base there, the triumph of Yalta. Putin's hold of power will not survive the lose of Crimea. But until it falls, he's safe. His potential successors want the fall of Crimea to happen under Putin's watch, not theirs.
I tend to lean towards this view which is part repeats some of what you wrote: "The War in Ukraine Will Be Long. Is the West Ready?"
Shorter, who can last longer? Putin or the West? As the saying goes, "Armies don't fight wars; nations fight wars." That is to say wars are determined by the willingness of the people to support and sacrifice for it. My guess is that the average Russian - those outside the cities/urban areas - still support the effort. They believe Russian propaganda - this is a war of the Motherland against fascist enemies. There's a long storied history of Russian antipathy towards the West, a sense of encirclement, of victimization. It predates the 1917 Revolution. How long will that support last?
link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-long-west-ready-11673571215
-
Meanwhile, here in reality, Ukraine may be on the verge of retreating from Bakhmut within the next few days or weeks. And they’re not even fighting the actual Russian army. Russian mercenaries are doing most of the work in Soledar and Bakhmut.
I stand by my view that Ukraine will not militarily defeat Russia. It’s just too difficult a task for them to do alone. Yes, I know we’re giving them a ton of aid but short of the US or NATO intervening directly in the war, I don’t see how Ukraine overcomes the huge odds that are against them.
It is impossible for Ukraine to militarily defeat Russia. Even with unlimited US military assistance. They are never going to have the capability to invade Russia and drive on to Moscow which is what it would take to force a military end to the conflict. The Nazis could not do it and Napoleon could not do it. At best, they can fight a Viet Cong style guerilla war to bleed the Russians dry until the political will to continue the war in Moscow comes to an end. The Russians are not like the US, though. They are not subject to the same media scrutiny and public pressures to end wars. If Putin wants to stick it out, it will continue. That means years of war until Ukraine is a pile of rubble. The US will get in deeper and deeper as we did in Vietnam. Once political capital has been invested in a cause, it becomes increasingly difficult for the politicians to admit a mistake. You can't sink billions or trillions into places like the Vietnam and Afghanistan promising victory only to say it was all a mistake predicated on a lot of lies. So it will go on and on. More money, deaths, destruction, US advisors (who are likely already on the ground).
-
Meanwhile, here in reality, Ukraine may be on the verge of retreating from Bakhmut within the next few days or weeks. . . .
Ukraine will lose Bakhmut? Ukraine will lose Bakhmut? Dear God, I hope not.
Who cares? Russian is petering out. No town of 10,000 or 3,000 taken after months and months of trying. Nothing to remotely match the Ukrainian successes, who have already taken back thousands of square miles of territory, and half of the land lost since February 2022. In the meantime, the Russians can't take a single town of 10,000 or 3,000, even with the help of the dirty 12,000. Not too many Charles Bronson's in that Wagner Group. Maybe a few Telly Savalas's, at best.
Look at a map. Look at how much territory Ukraine has taken back. Look at the pitiful thin slices of territory the Russians have taken back in the great Bahkmut and Soledar offenses.
. . . And they’re not even fighting the actual Russian army. Russian mercenaries are doing most of the work in Soledar and Bakhmut.
They're not even fighting the actual Russian army because the Russian army doesn't have enough will left for more than a small fraction of it to continue offensive operations. They Russian's aren't withholding the Russian army because it would be too one sided. "Let's give the Ukrainians a break and see if they can even beat our worst". It's because these convicts, with no real choice except to stay in prison or join up, and now no real choice except likely get killed or definitely get killed if they refuse, are the best option the Russian's have. The Russian training personal, can't be used to train the new Russian recruits, because they are needed just to hold the line. Those who haven't been killed already. The Russians are reduced to using the Belorussian army to do what training they receive, even though a year ago, the Russians considered the Belorussian army, and trainers, inferior to the Russian ones. Right now, Wagner is the best they got. And they are only capable of taking a pitiful amount of ground at great casualties.
In the meantime, thousands of veteran Ukraine troops have been sent outside the country to receive NATO training, far superior to anything the Russians have or ever had. Not just in how to use the NATO equipment they will be using for the first time, but to learn basic combined arms tactics, which the Ukrainians generally have not been trained in and the Russians definitely have not been trained in. That will make a difference.
I stand by my view that Ukraine will not militarily defeat Russia. It’s just too difficult a task for them to do alone. Yes, I know we’re giving them a ton of aid but short of the US or NATO intervening directly in the war, I don’t see how Ukraine overcomes the huge odds that are against them.
I stand by my view. Ukrainians will continue to do what they have been doing since summer. Beat the Russians. And for the Russians, it's going to get worse before it gets even worse.
-
I tend to lean towards this view which is part repeats some of what you wrote: "The War in Ukraine Will Be Long. Is the West Ready?"
Shorter, who can last longer? Putin or the West? As the saying goes, "Armies don't fight wars; nations fight wars." That is to say wars are determined by the willingness of the people to support and sacrifice for it. My guess is that the average Russian - those outside the cities/urban areas - still support the effort. They believe Russian propaganda - this is a war of the Motherland against fascist enemies. There's a long storied history of Russian antipathy towards the West, a sense of encirclement, of victimization. It predates the 1917 Revolution. How long will that support last?
link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-long-west-ready-11673571215
I tend to lean towards that view as well. The weak link is not in Ukrainian will. Or Poland's will to continue support. Or Germany's will to continue support. It is in America's will to continue to support. But while this is the weakest link, I am confident it will hold firm for at least a year, or several years if need be. Even the Republicans have strong support for Ukraine. Only the most extreme MAGA fanatics in Congress are arguing that we should drop support for them.
And why do any Americans feel reluctant? For a fraction of our yearly defense spending, we can save Europe. Because if we can't hold territory with everything going our way, the Russians will think they are unbeatable. The same Americans who feel no loyalty to European democracy feel no loyalty to American democracy. Probably not a coincidence.
Ukraine needs to take Crimea this summer. That will:
1. Be terrible for Russian morale.
2. Secure southern Ukraine, secure Odessa, secure Ukraine's access to the sea for vital grain exports.
Without Crimea, Ukraine existence will always be perilous. The thin strip of territory bordering Russia in the far east is much less important. And, for now, a much harder nut to crack. Go south brave country, go south.
-
It is impossible for Ukraine to militarily defeat Russia. Even with unlimited US military assistance. They are never going to have the capability to invade Russia and drive on to Moscow which is what it would take to force a military end to the conflict. The Nazis could not do it and Napoleon could not do it. At best, they can fight a Viet Cong style guerilla war to bleed the Russians dry until the political will to continue the war in Moscow comes to an end. The Russians are not like the US, though. They are not subject to the same media scrutiny and public pressures to end wars. If Putin wants to stick it out, it will continue. That means years of war until Ukraine is a pile of rubble. The US will get in deeper and deeper as we did in Vietnam. Once political capital has been invested in a cause, it becomes increasingly difficult for the politicians to admit a mistake. You can't sink billions or trillions into places like the Vietnam and Afghanistan promising victory only to say it was all a mistake predicated on a lot of lies. So it will go on and on. More money, deaths, destruction, US advisors (who are likely already on the ground).
[/b]
That's exactly what I fear most about this war.
I don't think it's probable that Ukraine alone can militarily defeat Russia. When it becomes clear that Ukraine won't win, do we accept that and move on? Or do we escalate our level of involvement to the point of risking WW3? I fear that some of our leaders (mainly Western Liberals) are crazy enough to start WW3 and risk nuclear war over Ukraine. As much as we may sympathize with the plight of Ukraine, it's not our fight. It's a regional war between two countries that have fought each other for centuries and have overlapping culture and histories. Making it 'our fight' could make the world far more unstable and risk nuclear war...
-
FP Magazine: The Perpetually Irrational Ukraine Debate
Because war is uncertain and reliable information is sparse, no one knows how the war in Ukraine will play out. Nor can any of us be completely certain what the optimal course of action is. We all have our own theories, hunches, beliefs, and hopes, but nobody’s crystal ball is 100 percent reliable in the middle of a war.
You might think that this situation would encourage observers to approach the whole issue with a certain humility and give alternative perspectives a fair hearing even when they disagree with one’s own. Instead, debates about responsibility for the war and the proper course of action to follow have been unusually nasty and intolerant, even by modern standards of social media vituperation. I’ve been trying to figure out why this is the case.
What I find especially striking is how liberal interventionists, unrepentant neoconservatives, and a handful of progressives who are all-in for Ukraine seem to have no doubts whatsoever about the origins of the conflict or the proper course of action to follow today. For them, Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely and totally responsible for the war, and the only mistakes others may have made in the past was to be too nice to Russia and too willing to buy its oil and gas. The only outcome they are willing to entertain is a complete Ukrainian victory, ideally accompanied by regime change in Moscow, the imposition of reparations to finance Ukrainian reconstruction, and war crimes trials for Putin and his associates. Convinced that anything less than this happy result will reward aggression, undermine deterrence, and place the current world order in jeopardy, their mantra is: “Whatever it takes for as long as it takes.”
This same group has also been extraordinarily critical of those who believe responsibility for the war is not confined to Russia’s president and who think these war aims might be desirable in the abstract but are unlikely to be achieved at an acceptable cost and risk. If you have the temerity to suggest that NATO enlargement (and the policies related to it) helped pave the road to war, if you believe the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement and that getting there sooner rather than later would be desirable, and if you favor supporting Ukraine but think this goal should be weighed against other interests, you’re almost certain to be denounced as a pro-Putin stooge, an appeaser, an isolationist, or worse. Case in point: When a handful of progressive congressional representatives released a rather tepid statement calling for greater reliance on diplomacy a few weeks ago, it was buried under a hailstorm of criticism and quickly disavowed by its own sponsors.
Wartime is precisely when one should think most dispassionately and carefully about one’s own interests and strategies. Unfortunately, keeping a cool head is especially hard to do when the bullets are flying, innocent people are suffering, and rallying public support takes priority. A narrowing of debate is typical of most wars—at least for a long time—with governments encouraging patriotic groupthink and marginalizing dissident views. And the war in Ukraine has been no exception thus far.
One reason public discourse is so heated is moral outrage, and I have a degree of sympathy for this position. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is horrific, and it’s easy to understand why people are angry, eager to support Kyiv any way they can, happy to condemn Russia’s leaders for their crimes, and willing to inflict some sort of punishment on the perpetrators. It’s emotionally gratifying to side with an underdog, especially when the other side is inflicting great harm on innocent people. Under the circumstances, I can also understand why some people are quick to see anyone with a different view as being insufficiently committed to a righteous cause and to conclude that they must somehow sympathize with the enemy. In the present political climate, if someone is not all-in for Ukraine, then they must be siding with Putin.
Moral outrage is not a policy, however, and anger at Putin and Russia does not tell us what approach is best for Ukraine or the world. It’s possible that the hawks are right and that giving Ukraine whatever it thinks it needs to achieve victory is the best course of action. But this approach is hardly guaranteed to succeed; it might just prolong the war to no good purpose, increase Ukrainian suffering, and eventually lead Russia to escalate or even use a nuclear weapon. None of us can be 100 percent certain that the policies we favor will turn out as we expect and hope.
Nor does outrage at Russia’s present conduct justify viewing those who warned that Western policy was making a future conflict more likely as being on Moscow’s side. To explain why something bad happened is not to justify or defend it, and calling for diplomacy (while highlighting the obstacles such an effort would face) does not entail lack of concern for Ukraine itself. Different people can be equally committed to helping Ukraine yet favor sharply differing ways to achieve that end...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/29/the-perpetually-irrational-ukraine-debate/
-
The creeping escalation is ongoing. How many weapons systems did he US initially refuse to send and then provided? And when that was not enough, they sent more. Now the US is going to send tanks. What happens when that doesn't work? We all know the answer to that. Undoubtedly, there are CIA and US military advisors on the ground. At some point they will begin openly requesting US military presence on the ground.
-
The creeping escalation is ongoing. How many weapons systems did he US initially refuse to send and then provided? And when that was not enough, they sent more. Now the US is going to send tanks. What happens when that doesn't work? We all know the answer to that. Undoubtedly, there are CIA and US military advisors on the ground. At some point they will begin openly requesting US military presence on the ground.
That's what I fear most. It reminds me of the mission-creep in the years leading up to the Vietnam war.
It remains improbable that Ukraine wins the war militarily in spite of all the military aid we're sending over there. The artillery-style/tank warfare favors Russia which has thousands of tanks and artillery pieces. Ukraine still has far less tanks than Russia even with the latest aid packages. And it will take weeks, if not months, for Ukrainians to learn how to competently use NATO weapons and integrate these weapons into their combined warfare effort.
If months from now Ukraine is still losing territory and Russia is still making gains, does the US and our allies in Europe accept that and move on? Or do they push for NATO boots on the ground in order to level the playing field?
I really don't know if they're ready to accept that Ukraine may still lose the war in spite of our efforts.
-
That's what I fear most. It reminds me of the mission-creep in the years leading up to the Vietnam war.
It remains improbable that Ukraine wins the war militarily in spite of all the military aid we're sending over there. The artillery-style/tank warfare favors Russia which has thousands of tanks and artillery pieces. Ukraine still has far less tanks than Russia even with the latest aid packages. And it will take weeks, if not months, for Ukrainians to learn how to competently use NATO weapons and integrate these weapons into their combined warfare effort.
If months from now Ukraine is still losing territory and Russia is still making gains, does the US and our allies in Europe accept that and move on? Or do they push for NATO boots on the ground in order to level the playing field?
I really don't know if they're ready to accept that Ukraine may still lose the war in spite of our efforts.
Yes, what happens after all this money and political capital is invested in Ukraine and the Russians are still there? At what point does the US and NATO feel they must intervene with ground forces to save Ukraine? Just like Vietnam. The politicians can't let this end in a Russian victory when Zelensky starts asking for ground forces. An admission of failure. It also takes years of training to operate these weapons systems and tanks in combat situations. Does anyone really believe the US does not have advisors already in Ukraine operating much of this equipment? They are just going to send billions in weapons systems to people who are not trained to use them?
-
Yes, what happens after all this money and political capital is invested in Ukraine and the Russians are still there? At what point does the US and NATO feel they must intervene with ground forces to save Ukraine? Just like Vietnam. The politicians can't let this end in a Russian victory when Zelensky starts asking for ground forces. An admission of failure. It also takes years of training to operate these weapons systems and tanks in combat situations. Does anyone really believe the US does not have advisors already in Ukraine operating much of this equipment? They are just going to send billions in weapons systems to people who are not trained to use them?
The Leopard 2 tanks are superior to the best Russian tanks. I don't think this is looking like an impeding stalemate. The Ukrainians have held their own with limited aid so far. Let's see what the summer brings before we start to make any conclusions about an unwinnable war.
For me, I don't see how Russia can hold Crimea this year. How can the prevent the Ukrainians cutting the Crimea Land Bridge to the north? Those Leopard 2's are going to be hard to stop. The Russian's couldn't stop the Ukrainians when all they had was inferior Soviet tanks. The Russians are now going to have more luck against the Leopard 2's?
How can they prevent the Ukrainians taking out the Crimea bridge itself to the east?
How can the Russian's supply Crimea from the sea when the Moskva could not defend itself?
How can the Russian's supply Crimea through the air when both sides have such good anti-aircraft defenses. The one strong point of old Soviet equipment. Along with lots of artillery.
How can any country hold territory that is cut off? Are the Russian's going to dig a tunnel from Russia to Crimea in the next few months?
So let's wait and see how the summer plays out for Russia.
-
The Leopard 2 tanks are superior to the best Russian tanks. I don't think this is looking like an impeding stalemate. The Ukrainians have held their own with limited aid so far. Let's see what the summer brings before we start to make any conclusions about an unwinnable war.
For me, I don't see how Russia can hold Crimea this year. How can the prevent the Ukrainians cutting the Crimea Land Bridge to the north? Those Leopard 2's are going to be hard to stop. The Russian's couldn't stop the Ukrainians when all they had was inferior Soviet tanks. The Russians are now going to have more luck against the Leopard 2's?
How can they prevent the Ukrainians taking out the Crimea bridge itself to the east?
How can the Russian's supply Crimea from the sea when the Moskva could not defend itself?
How can the Russian's supply Crimea through the air when both sides have such good anti-aircraft defenses. The one strong point of old Soviet equipment. Along with lots of artillery.
How can any country hold territory that is cut off? Are the Russian's going to dig a tunnel from Russia to Crimea in the next few months?
So let's wait and see how the summer plays out for Russia.
What happens if the tanks don't change the equation and the only option left is NATO sending ground forces? The options narrow to allowing Ukraine to being overrun or sending American soldiers to fight Russians? What then? In Vietnam there was creeping escalation and promises of victory with escalation. The US was drawn into that conflict step by step. The politicians made promises that if we just escalated a bit more, then victory was at hand. And when it didn't happen, they were trapped by their own promises and couldn't get out.
-
The US was again duped into sending tanks by our German "allies" who have done almost nothing. The US is sending over $100 billion in weapons to Ukraine, but the Germans would only send a few tanks if the US sent our tanks. Unreal. And, of course, the US has paid to defend Germany for over seven decades.
-
The Leopard 2 tanks are superior to the best Russian tanks.
On paper maybe. It's difficult to predict how effective these tanks will be in action against Russia's tanks and anti-tank missiles.
I'm not an expert on tanks but I know it usually requires months if not years of training for operators to be competent in combat with modern tanks. So it won't matter much how much better the leopard tanks are if Ukrainians don't get adequate training on them.
And I'm assuming they're getting older Leopard tanks, not the most modern versions but I could be wrong.
Combined arms warfare isn't like playing Call of Duty. It takes months, and sometimes years, of training to use certain tanks and artillery machines competently.
I don't think this is looking like an impeding stalemate. The Ukrainians have held their own with limited aid so far. Let's see what the summer brings before we start to make any conclusions about an unwinnable war.
For me, I don't see how Russia can hold Crimea this year. How can the prevent the Ukrainians cutting the Crimea Land Bridge to the north? Those Leopard 2's are going to be hard to stop. The Russian's couldn't stop the Ukrainians when all they had was inferior Soviet tanks. The Russians are now going to have more luck against the Leopard 2's?
How can they prevent the Ukrainians taking out the Crimea bridge itself to the east?
How can the Russian's supply Crimea from the sea when the Moskva could not defend itself?
How can the Russian's supply Crimea through the air when both sides have such good anti-aircraft defenses. The one strong point of old Soviet equipment. Along with lots of artillery.
How can any country hold territory that is cut off? Are the Russian's going to dig a tunnel from Russia to Crimea in the next few months?
So let's wait and see how the summer plays out for Russia.
I've so far seen no proof that Crimea (which Russians can currently reach by land, sea, or air) is suffering from supply problems. And no, Ukraine's air defenses are not on par with Russia's.
Seems like you're getting ahead of yourself in discussing Crimea while Ukraine continues to lose ground in recent weeks. I know that things can change quickly in war but currently, Russia seems to have gained some momentum. The Russians absolutely could run out of steam again like last year but the mobilized forces in recent weeks appear to be making an impact. It remains to be seen whether or not Ukraine can organize another Kharkiv-like offensive. I wouldn't rule it out.
-
The US was again duped into sending tanks by our German "allies" who have done almost nothing. The US is sending over $100 billion in weapons to Ukraine, but the Germans would only send a few tanks if the US sent our tanks. Unreal. And, of course, the US has paid to defend Germany for over seven decades.
The US Abrams tanks might never see action in Ukraine. Germany got played it seems (they said they would only send their tanks if the US sent tanks):
"The Pentagon had long been reluctant to send the Abrams, in part because they are exceptionally complex machines that are challenging to operate and maintain. As it is, officials have said it could take a year or even longer for them to actually reach the battlefield in Ukraine."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/25/world/russia-ukraine-news#biden-announces-31-abrams-tanks-for-ukraine-but-says-the-move-is-not-meant-to-escalate-the-war
Either way, Ukraine needs hundreds of tanks asap, not dozens, but dozens is what they're getting.
-
The US Abrams tanks might never see action in Ukraine. Germany got played it seems (they said they would only send their tanks if the US sent tanks):
"The Pentagon had long been reluctant to send the Abrams, in part because they are exceptionally complex machines that are challenging to operate and maintain. As it is, officials have said it could take a year or even longer for them to actually reach the battlefield in Ukraine."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/25/world/russia-ukraine-news#biden-announces-31-abrams-tanks-for-ukraine-but-says-the-move-is-not-meant-to-escalate-the-war
Either way, Ukraine needs hundreds of tanks asap, not dozens, but dozens is what they're getting.
Hitler sent thousands of tanks against Russia and lost. So it is difficult to understand how 14 Leopards is going to change the situation. What happens next is that Ukraine will insist on jets. When that doesn't change the situation, they will request US and NATO ground troops. The problem here is that no matter what they are sent it is up to Russians as to when this war ends. Ukraine can't militarily defeat Russia by driving to Moscow. They can only keep up the fight and hope the Russians eventually lose their political will to continue the war. A strategy that generally takes many years.
-
On paper maybe. It's difficult to predict how effective these tanks will be in action against Russia's tanks and anti-tank missiles.
Ukrainians have been successful against Soviet era Russia tanks just using their own Soviet era tanks, plus using the ones they captured from the Russians. They will have more success with the Leopard 2.
I'm not an expert on tanks but I know it usually requires months if not years of training for operators to be competent in combat with modern tanks. So it won't matter much how much better the leopard tanks are if Ukrainians don't get adequate training on them.
Learning the Abrams will take a lot of time. I don't know if the Ukrainians should even bother for now. But the Leopard 2 is a very different story. Military experts believe that just a few weeks of training on the Leopard 2 would be enough to make a crew, already familiar with tanks (like the T-72), effective. Not as effective as they would be with more training. But effective enough. More effective than just staying with their old familiar T-72.
And I'm assuming they're getting older Leopard tanks, not the most modern versions but I could be wrong.
Doesn't matter. The Oldest Leopard 2 tanks are superior to anything the Russians have, including their newest T-14 which is so bad, they haven't used in combat. They send in the ancient T-62's instead. The T-14 can't handle a parade, let alone be used in combat.
Combined arms warfare isn't like playing Call of Duty. It takes months, and sometimes years, of training to use certain tanks and artillery machines competently.
The experts say that training on the Leopard 2 won't take nearly as long as training on other tanks, like the Abrams. That is one reason why the much superior Abrams (in many ways) won't be a factor at all this year, or probably the next, if the war goes on that long. But the Leopard 2 is a different story.
I've so far seen no proof that Crimea (which Russians can currently reach by land, sea, or air) is suffering from supply problems. And no, Ukraine's air defenses are not on par with Russia's.
No, it isn't. And it won't, until Ukraine cuts the Crimea Land Bridge and the regular Crimea Bridge to the east. Then it will start to be a big supply problem.
Seems like you're getting ahead of yourself in discussing Crimea while Ukraine continues to lose ground in recent weeks. I know that things can change quickly in war but currently, Russia seems to have gained some momentum. The Russians absolutely could run out of steam again like last year but the mobilized forces in recent weeks appear to be making an impact. It remains to be seen whether or not Ukraine can organize another Kharkiv-like offensive. I wouldn't rule it out.
The labored gains the Russians made in the last few weeks, crawling forward yards per day, are nothing compared to the big gains the Ukrainians had east of Kharkov in September, or in the Kherson region in November. Since mid-summer, when we finally go them some accurate long range strike ability, with the HIMARS, the overall momentum has been going Ukraine's way.
In any war, the side that is losing can always point to minor gains. German propaganda conceded that the Western allies and the Russians did have their gains, in France, in Belorussia. But the Germans had their successes too. In the Eastern Prussia counterattack. The advances during the Battle of the Bulge. The advances the Germans made against Strasbourg during Operation Nordwind. All these German counterattacks were tiny compared to the advances the Allies made during 1944. And the smallest of these German advances were much much greater than all the advances the Russians have made in the last six months.
-
Learning the Abrams will take a lot of time. I don't know if the Ukrainians should even bother for now. But the Leopard 2 is a very different story. Military experts believe that just a few weeks of training on the Leopard 2 would be enough to make a crew, already familiar with tanks (like the T-72), effective. Not as effective as they would be with more training. But effective enough. More effective than just staying with their old familiar T-72.
We'll see. Aside from using the tanks, maintenance is an obstacle too. The tanks will need to be sent hundreds of miles to Poland whenever they need repairs.
The other logistical obstacle is ammo. Some of these NATO weapons systems use different ammo from what the Ukrainians have typically used.
At some level these Western tanks may help Ukraine but it's not likely to be a game-changer.
Doesn't matter. The Oldest Leopard 2 tanks are superior to anything the Russians have, including their newest T-14 which is so bad, they haven't used in combat. They send in the ancient T-62's instead. The T-14 can't handle a parade, let alone be used in combat.
The Russian T-90M tank is pretty good. And Russian anti-tank missiles have destroyed Leopard tanks in other conflicts.
-
We'll see. Aside from using the tanks, maintenance is an obstacle too. The tanks will need to be sent hundreds of miles to Poland whenever they need repairs.
The other logistical obstacle is ammo. Some of these NATO weapons systems use different ammo from what the Ukrainians have typically used.
At some level these Western tanks may help Ukraine but it's not likely to be a game-changer.
The Russian T-90M tank is pretty good. And Russian anti-tank missiles have destroyed Leopard tanks in other conflicts.
The Russian tried to win this war on the cheap. They sent their most poorly trained troops and equipment. That could change. The Russians have the tanks and troops to overrun Ukraine in a week if they unleash them. Does NATO and the US allow that to happen or do they send in ground troops?
-
The Russian tried to win this war on the cheap. They sent their most poorly trained troops and equipment. That could change. The Russians have the tanks and troops to overrun Ukraine in a week if they unleash them. Does NATO and the US allow that to happen or do they send in ground troops?
Totally false Russian propaganda. Russia has already sent in their best. Like the 1st Guards Tank Army, an elite unit tracing descent back to the army that was formed in 1942 and fought successfully during the Battle of Stalingrad.
The United Kingdom Ministry of Defense reported on 19 May 2022 that army commander General-Lieutenant Sergey Kisel had been suspended for his failure to capture Kharkiv. The same army that helped take Berlin in 1945 could not take Kharkiv in 2022. So much for the 1st Guards Tank Army.
The Russians have even thrown in the experienced men who trained new recruits, leaving no one qualified to train the recent 300,000 draftees.
Because the best has already been thrown in, that is why they lost over 1,000 square miles east of Kharkiv in September. That is why they lost the regional capitol of Kherson in November. And can only gain small slivers of territory around Bakhmut in response, while thousands of Ukrainians are away from the front and out of the country training on NATO equipment or learning NATO combined arms tactics for the real battle in the upcoming summer, spearheaded by the NATO supplied Leopard 2 tanks. Look to the south.
Why is Putin risking civil upheaval by drafting 300,000 nearly worthless draftees, when he could just send in the real army at anytime and steamroll the Ukrainians? Because he has already sent in the real army. The Russian army of 2022 was not the Russian army of 1945. Or even 1980. Even our own military experts grossly overestimated the Russian army, based on past history that no longer applies. It has become a corrupt riddled shell of it's previous self only capable of strong anti-air defense and huge artillery bombardments burning through the Soviet era surplus at a rate which cannot be nearly matched by new production.
-
Totally false Russian propaganda. Russia has already sent in their best. Like the 1st Guards Tank Army, an elite unit tracing descent back to the army that was formed in 1942 and fought successfully during the Battle of Stalingrad.
The United Kingdom Ministry of Defense reported on 19 May 2022 that army commander General-Lieutenant Sergey Kisel had been suspended for his failure to capture Kharkiv. The same army that helped take Berlin in 1945 could not take Kharkiv in 2022. So much for the 1st Guards Tank Army.
The Russians have even thrown in the experienced men who trained new recruits, leaving no one qualified to train the recent 300,000 draftees.
Because the best has already been thrown in, that is why they lost over 1,000 square miles east of Kharkiv in September. That is why they lost the regional capitol of Kherson in November. And can only gain small slivers of territory around Bakhmut in response, while thousands of Ukrainians are away from the front and out of the country training on NATO equipment or learning NATO combined arms tactics for the real battle in the upcoming summer, spearheaded by the NATO supplied Leopard 2 tanks. Look to the south.
Why is Putin risking civil upheaval by drafting 300,000 nearly worthless draftees, when he could just send in the real army at anytime and steamroll the Ukrainians? Because he has already sent in the real army. The Russian army of 2022 was not the Russian army of 1945. Or even 1980. Even our own military experts grossly overestimated the Russian army, based on past history that no longer applies. It has become a corrupt riddled shell of it's previous self only capable of strong anti-air defense and huge artillery bombardments burning through the Soviet era surplus at a rate which cannot be nearly matched by new production.
There is propaganda but it is not just coming from Russia. The Russians have not sent their best tanks, planes and soldiers. They have sent mostly conscripts and mercenaries who are ill-trained and equipped. The Russians dying in this war are mostly from poor and rural hinterlands with no political influence in Moscow. It is much riskier to have the elite sons from Moscow and St. Petersburg families dying in Ukraine. Putin underestimated the resistance. He can up the ante as he sees fit. There is no strategy for victory by Ukraine or NATO. At best they can extend the conflict indefinitely until Ukraine is a pile of rubble. The only hope being that they eventually out last Russia as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. A strategy that will take years and maximize the number of deaths and destruction on all sides as in previous such situations.
-
Hitler sent thousands of tanks against Russia and lost. So it is difficult to understand how 14 Leopards is going to change the situation. What happens next is that Ukraine will insist on jets. When that doesn't change the situation, they will request US and NATO ground troops. The problem here is that no matter what they are sent it is up to Russians as to when this war ends. Ukraine can't militarily defeat Russia by driving to Moscow. They can only keep up the fight and hope the Russians eventually lose their political will to continue the war. A strategy that generally takes many years.
Hitler sent thousands of tanks against Russia and lost. So it is difficult to understand how 14 Leopards is going to change the situation.
What an ignorant comment. Hitler invaded Russia itself and got stuck in Stalingrad in the winter. The Russians basically used the same tactic as they did when Napoleon invaded.
Ukraine is not going to invade Russia. The Leopards, of which there will be far more than 14 (Germany alone is sending some 90), will be used to kick Russia out of Ukraine.
Ukraine can't militarily defeat Russia by driving to Moscow.
They never had any plans to do so. But they sure as hell can kick Russia out of their country.
Two factors will determine the outcome; (1) the decline of the economic situation of Russia (to date imports and exports are down by 50% and (2) the inability of Russia to take over Ukraine completely. Combined this means a prolonged military conflict that's going nowhere fast and ending up being pointless and lots of hardship for the Russian people.
The Russian tried to win this war on the cheap. They sent their most poorly trained troops and equipment. That could change. The Russians have the tanks and troops to overrun Ukraine in a week if they unleash them. Does NATO and the US allow that to happen or do they send in ground troops?
Wow, so much admiration for Russia from a guy who clearly hates the country he's now living in. Perhaps a change of address is in order!
-
Hitler sent thousands of tanks against Russia and lost. So it is difficult to understand how 14 Leopards is going to change the situation.
What an ignorant comment. Hitler invaded Russia itself and got stuck in Stalingrad in the winter. The Russians basically used the same tactic as they did when Napoleon invaded.
Ukraine is not going to invade Russia. The Leopards, of which there will be far more than 14 (Germany alone is sending some 90), will be used to kick Russia out of Ukraine.
Ukraine can't militarily defeat Russia by driving to Moscow.
They never had any planes to do so. But they sure as hell can kick Russia out of their country.
Two factors will determine the outcome; (1) the decline of the economic situation of Russia (to date imports and exports are down by 50% and (2) the inability of Russia to take over Ukraine completely. Combined this means a prolonged military conflict that's going nowhere fast and ending up being pointless and lots of hardship for the Russian people.
Wow, so much admiration for Russia from a guy who clearly hates the country he's now living in. Perhaps a change of address is in order!
A grain of wisdom here amongst the usual ignorance and insults. Ukraine cannot, no matter how many weapons they are ever given, invade and conquer Russia. As a result, the strategic outcome as to how long this war goes on and ends is totally with the Russians. The only thing Ukraine can do is hold out and hope that Russia eventually tires of the conflict. Asking for more and more weapons like fighter jets and ground forces. A strategy that will take years and maximize the destruction and deaths. History repeating itself over and over. A handful of tanks will make little difference here except to escalate the Russian response. Something that has already occurred.
And how is that investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline coming? That event happened months ago and the US blamed Russia. As though Russia would blow up its own pipeline. And if they did so, the US military and intelligence resources still have no proof to offer. LOL. I'm glad only the Russians use propaganda.
-
A grain of wisdom here amongst the usual ignorance and insults. Ukraine cannot, no matter how many weapons they are ever given, invade and conquer Russia. As a result, the strategic outcome as to how long this war goes on and ends is totally with the Russians. The only thing Ukraine can do is hold out and hope that Russia eventually tires of the conflict. Asking for more and more weapons like fighter jets and ground forces. A strategy that will take years and maximize the destruction and deaths. History repeating itself over and over. A handful of tanks will make little difference here except to escalate the Russian response. Something that has already occurred.
And how is that investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline coming? That event happened months ago and the US blamed Russia. As though Russia would blow up its own pipeline. And if they did so, the US military and intelligence resources still have no proof to offer. LOL. I'm glad only the Russians use propaganda.
Ukraine cannot, no matter how many weapons they are ever given, invade and conquer Russia.
They never had any intention to do so and if they did it would only prolong the war. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war against an aggressor. As such it will always be up to the aggressor to end hostilities. Time is not on Russia's side. The longer the war goes on, the more Russian deaths and the lack of results will have to be explained to a people that's already suffering under the sanctions. The more time goes by without any significant progress for Russia, the more popular support will wane. History will indeed repeat itself as Russia will ultimately have to pull out or go for mass destruction, which of course will include their own destruction as well.
-
A grain of wisdom here amongst the usual ignorance and insults. Ukraine cannot, no matter how many weapons they are ever given, invade and conquer Russia. As a result, the strategic outcome as to how long this war goes on and ends is totally with the Russians. The only thing Ukraine can do is hold out and hope that Russia eventually tires of the conflict. Asking for more and more weapons like fighter jets and ground forces. A strategy that will take years and maximize the destruction and deaths. History repeating itself over and over. A handful of tanks will make little difference here except to escalate the Russian response. Something that has already occurred.
And how is that investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline coming? That event happened months ago and the US blamed Russia. As though Russia would blow up its own pipeline. And if they did so, the US military and intelligence resources still have no proof to offer. LOL. I'm glad only the Russians use propaganda.
I suspect that the US and UK with the help of allies like maybe Poland sabotaged Germany's pipelines. And yes, the investigation is being conducted quietly as there's no evidence so far that Russia did it. Even if Germany suspects that the US was behind the sabotage, what can they do about it? Absolutely nothing.
-
Ukraine cannot, no matter how many weapons they are ever given, invade and conquer Russia.
They never had any intention to do so and if they did it would only prolong the war. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war against an aggressor. As such it will always be up to the aggressor to end hostilities. Time is not on Russia's side. The longer the war goes on, the more Russian deaths and the lack of results will have to be explained to a people that's already suffering under the sanctions. The more time goes by without any significant progress for Russia, the more popular support will wane. History will indeed repeat itself as Russia will ultimately have to pull out or go for mass destruction, which of course will include their own destruction as well.
I wouldn't bet on any of those things coming to pass. Ukraine is likely to be destroyed before Russia (in the event that financial support for Ukraine from western countries dries up).
So far, Russians are rallying around the flag and Putin doesn't appear to be under much political pressure at home. A consequence of escalating against Russia is that the Russian people increasingly feel like they're at war with the West (not just Ukraine) regardless of who is responsible for starting the war. Russians view the war as existential for them.
Politico: Appealing to Russians to end the war on Ukraine is wasted breath
Western nations started imposing financial and commercial sanctions on Russia immediately after its invasion of Ukraine began. Their goal was to not only punish Russia and disrupt President Vladimir Putin’s war machine, but there was hope that the resulting economic hardship might persuade ordinary Russians to rebel, or prompt a putsch by Kremlin insiders or oligarchs.
Nearly a year on, however, there are few signs of any significant cracks appearing in what a Russian pollster dubbed a “broad consensus” backing Putin’s war. The overt splits and infighting taking place in both the Kremlin and the political-military establishment are over how to prosecute the war — not the future of the Russian leader — and public support for the war appears to remain high.
In a recent survey, Lev Gudkov’s Levada Center — currently the only independent opinion research organization in Russia — found that 53 percent of respondents subscribe to the view that Putin’s “special military operation” is progressing successfully. And in another survey last month, most respondents told Levada pollsters that “every real man should serve in the army.”
“State propaganda is still managing to forge a broad consensus,” Gudkov lamented in an interview.
Ukrainian lawmaker Mykola Kniazhytskyi agrees. “It is difficult to believe any Russian sociology, but it seems that the majority of Russians support the genocide against Ukrainians,” he told POLITICO.
Naturally, some have questioned the reliability of any sort of opinion polling coming out of Putin’s Russia. How trustworthy can the responses really be? If said in fear that a single word out of place might leak and prompt a late-night knock on the door, are those polled disguising what they really think?
Gudkov dismisses these questions of credibility, as his interviewers are well-trained, conduct long interviews and strive to ensure reliability. “People are not afraid to answer, that is a total misconception,” he said. And his overall bleak conclusion is that “Russians have little compassion for the Ukrainians.”
The absence of large-scale anti-war protests in Russia appears to attest to Levada’s findings. Any demonstrations that took place in the past year were sporadic and much smaller in size than the anti-Putin protests seen from 2011 to 2013 and 2017 to 2019. On the afternoon of the invasion, for example, the largest demonstrations were in Moscow, where 2,000 protesters turned out, and in St. Petersburg there were around 1,000. But elsewhere across Russia, no city boasted more than a few hundred...
https://www.politico.eu/article/commentary-ukraine-war-russia-vladimir-putin-invasion-end/
-
I wouldn't bet on any of those things coming to pass. Ukraine is likely to be destroyed before Russia (in the event that financial support for Ukraine from western countries dries up).
So far, Russians are rallying around the flag and Putin doesn't appear to be under much political pressure at home. A consequence of escalating against Russia is that the Russian people increasingly feel like they're at war with the West (not just Ukraine) regardless of who is responsible for starting the war. Russians view the war as existential for them.
Politico: Appealing to Russians to end the war on Ukraine is wasted breath
Western nations started imposing financial and commercial sanctions on Russia immediately after its invasion of Ukraine began. Their goal was to not only punish Russia and disrupt President Vladimir Putin’s war machine, but there was hope that the resulting economic hardship might persuade ordinary Russians to rebel, or prompt a putsch by Kremlin insiders or oligarchs.
Nearly a year on, however, there are few signs of any significant cracks appearing in what a Russian pollster dubbed a “broad consensus” backing Putin’s war. The overt splits and infighting taking place in both the Kremlin and the political-military establishment are over how to prosecute the war — not the future of the Russian leader — and public support for the war appears to remain high.
In a recent survey, Lev Gudkov’s Levada Center — currently the only independent opinion research organization in Russia — found that 53 percent of respondents subscribe to the view that Putin’s “special military operation” is progressing successfully. And in another survey last month, most respondents told Levada pollsters that “every real man should serve in the army.”
“State propaganda is still managing to forge a broad consensus,” Gudkov lamented in an interview.
Ukrainian lawmaker Mykola Kniazhytskyi agrees. “It is difficult to believe any Russian sociology, but it seems that the majority of Russians support the genocide against Ukrainians,” he told POLITICO.
Naturally, some have questioned the reliability of any sort of opinion polling coming out of Putin’s Russia. How trustworthy can the responses really be? If said in fear that a single word out of place might leak and prompt a late-night knock on the door, are those polled disguising what they really think?
Gudkov dismisses these questions of credibility, as his interviewers are well-trained, conduct long interviews and strive to ensure reliability. “People are not afraid to answer, that is a total misconception,” he said. And his overall bleak conclusion is that “Russians have little compassion for the Ukrainians.”
The absence of large-scale anti-war protests in Russia appears to attest to Levada’s findings. Any demonstrations that took place in the past year were sporadic and much smaller in size than the anti-Putin protests seen from 2011 to 2013 and 2017 to 2019. On the afternoon of the invasion, for example, the largest demonstrations were in Moscow, where 2,000 protesters turned out, and in St. Petersburg there were around 1,000. But elsewhere across Russia, no city boasted more than a few hundred...
https://www.politico.eu/article/commentary-ukraine-war-russia-vladimir-putin-invasion-end/
So far, Russians are rallying around the flag and Putin doesn't appear to be under much political pressure at home.
Really? Perhaps according to Russian propaganda.
Nearly a year on, however, there are few signs of any significant cracks appearing in what a Russian pollster dubbed a “broad consensus” backing Putin’s war.
I seriously doubt that there has been one Western leader, supporting Ukraine, who believed the sanctions would settle the matter within a year.
Having said that, the result of the sanctions has already been that Russia's import and export are at only 50% from what they used to be before the war. Can you name me one economy in the world that can sustain such a reduction for a long period of time? And that's even before the income from natural gas and oil will dry up further as the West is getting it elsewhere.
-
I seriously doubt that there has been one Western leader, supporting Ukraine, who believed the sanctions would settle the matter within a year.
Sanctions typically have the greatest impact in the initial phase. Eventually countries tend to figure out ways to evade sanctions. Russia seems to have shifted their supply-chains to China and India over the past year.
Did you happen to miss how Biden was claiming that the sanctions imposed last February would "cripple" Russia's economy?
Biden looks to cripple Russian economy with sanctions in response to invasion of Ukraine
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-looks-to-cripple-russian-economy-with-sanctions-in-response-to-invasion-of-ukraine-205959251.html
It hasn't stopped Russia's war machine, nor are there any signs of severe economic pain in Russia. There's a recession in Russia currently but it's nothing like what they experienced in the 1990s.
I think Putin invading Ukraine was a bad idea and Russia is paying a high price but now that they're in the war, they have to see it through because there aren't any off-ramps. Western leaders have revealed their intention to destroy Russia. There's no going back to the way things were before the war.
Ultimately, I think this war will end with some sort of official or unofficial partition of Ukraine...
-
. . . The only thing Ukraine can do is hold out and hope that Russia eventually tires of the conflict. . . .
Hope is what allowed Greece to survive long enough for the Persian empire to go home.
Hope is what allowed America to survive long enough for the British to go home.
Hope is what allowed Poland to survive long enough for the Russians to go home in 1920.
Hope is what allowed North Vietnam to survive long enough for the Americans to go home.
Hope is what allowed Poland to survive until both the Germans and later the Russians went home. Incredible but true.
Without hope small countries would not exist.
Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.
Maybe that is why we still have Poland and Ukraine. Some things are too good to die.
Regardless of what happens, Ukraine will survive. Poland survived and Ukraine will survive, in victory or defeat, as it has always done. Except this time, I don't think defeat is in the cards.
-
. . .
In a recent survey, Lev Gudkov’s Levada Center — currently the only independent opinion research organization in Russia — found that 53 percent of respondents subscribe to the view that Putin’s “special military operation” is progressing successfully. And in another survey last month, most respondents told Levada pollsters that “every real man should serve in the army.”
. . .
Yes. Most Russians think that "every real man should serve in the army". If one per cent of every real man of military age was to volunteer to serve in the army, the Russians would have something like 140,000 volunteers (assuming ten per cent of the Russian population are males of military age). They get many times that number fleeing the country. Wanting Russia to overrun Ukraine is one thing. But having a population that wants someone else to do this, not their son, not their husband, and certainly not themselves, is not a recipe for victory.
It is clear that Russia has the numbers to win. But not the will. They won in World War II because the will was there, in spades, to prevent the Russian people from being totally wiped out (not an exaggeration, certainly Hitler wanted to eliminate the Russian population in a generation or two). But the will was not there to hold Afghanistan in the 1980's. And it does not look like the will is there to take Ukraine in the 2020's. And Russian army of the 2020's is a shell of the Soviet army of the 1980's.
The will of the Ukrainians is there. It is incredible that they even attempted to stand up to the expected (by the rest of the world) Russian onslaught. The problem for the Russians is not that too many Ukrainians want someone else to drive back the Russians. The problem is that too many Ukrainians want to drive back the Russians themselves. In the absence of Russians wanting to fight the Ukrainians, that's a real problem. Not too many nations have won wars with that sort of problem.
-
Yes. Most Russians think that "every real man should serve in the army". If one per cent of every real man of military age was to volunteer to serve in the army, the Russians would have something like 140,000 volunteers (assuming ten per cent of the Russian population are males of military age). They get many times that number fleeing the country. Wanting Russia to overrun Ukraine is one thing. But having a population that wants someone else to do this, not their son, not their husband, and certainly not themselves, is not a recipe for victory.
It is clear that Russia has the numbers to win. But not the will. They won in World War II because the will was there, in spades, to prevent the Russian people from being totally wiped out (not an exaggeration, certainly Hitler wanted to eliminate the Russian population in a generation or two). But the will was not there to hold Afghanistan in the 1980's. And it does not look like the will is there to take Ukraine in the 2020's. And Russian army of the 2020's is a shell of the Soviet army of the 1980's.
The will of the Ukrainians is there. It is incredible that they even attempted to stand up to the expected (by the rest of the world) Russian onslaught. The problem for the Russians is not that too many Ukrainians want someone else to drive back the Russians. The problem is that too many Ukrainians want to drive back the Russians themselves. In the absence of Russians wanting to fight the Ukrainians, that's a real problem. Not too many nations have won wars with that sort of problem.
How do you know so much about the "will" of the Russians and Ukrainians? Is that from CNN or MSNBC? How do you know so much about the state of the Russian army? Is that from reading some of Old Joe's classified documents? The US news media has an agenda on this story. They report only news sympathetic to Ukraine. When the Ukranians are filmed executing Russian POWs it is suppressed. I'm not sure why any American would feel so emotionally invested in this conflict. There are numerous such conflicts in Africa and other places that are never mentioned. There was a clear propaganda campaign to promote US involvement in Ukraine. It portrayed this in the most simplistic manner to appeal to the emotions of Americans. We were told it had something to do with "democracy" even though Ukraine is a corrupt country run by oligarchs. It was a David and Goliath struggle like an Afterschool Special. Or as Kamala put it "Russia bad" and "Ukraine good." So $100 billion taxpayer dollars later the country is in ruin with no end in sight. A replacement war for Afghanistan to enrich the defense contractors. They must fall on the ground laughing at the rubes who display their Ukranian flag but who couldn't find the country on a map.
-
How do you know so much about the "will" of the Russians and Ukrainians? Is that from CNN or MSNBC? How do you know so much about the state of the Russian army? Is that from reading some of Old Joe's classified documents? The US news media has an agenda on this story. They report only news sympathetic to Ukraine. When the Ukranians are filmed executing Russian POWs it is suppressed. I'm not sure why any American would feel so emotionally invested in this conflict. There are numerous such conflicts in Africa and other places that are never mentioned. There was a clear propaganda campaign to promote US involvement in Ukraine. It portrayed this in the most simplistic manner to appeal to the emotions of Americans. We were told it had something to do with "democracy" even though Ukraine is a corrupt country run by oligarchs. It was a David and Goliath struggle like an Afterschool Special. Or as Kamala put it "Russia bad" and "Ukraine good." So $100 billion taxpayer dollars later the country is in ruin with no end in sight. A replacement war for Afghanistan to enrich the defense contractors. They must fall on the ground laughing at the rubes who display their Ukranian flag but who couldn't find the country on a map.
How do you know so much about the "will" of the Russians and Ukrainians?
Asks the guy who is arrogantly making "definitive" statements about all sorts of things, as if he has an inside source or even was there himself. Hilarious!
When the Ukranians are filmed executing Russian POWs it is suppressed.
If that's true (and it's a big "if"), how do you know about it?
-
How do you know so much about the "will" of the Russians and Ukrainians?
Asks the guy who is arrogantly making "definitive" statements about all sorts of things, as if he has an inside source or even was there himself. Hilarious!
When the Ukranians are filmed executing Russian POWs it is suppressed.
If that's true (and it's a big "if"), how do you know about it?
You are from "Europe". Right? So fill us in. The video of Ukranians killing Russian POWs is on You Tube. Do your socialist masters allow you to access that in "Europe"?
"The UN human rights chief said on Friday that videos showing Ukrainian soldiers executing Russian prisoners of war appear to be "authentic" and called for allegations of summary executions on both sides to be fully investigated.
Volker Turk said the video, which has been circulating on social media and allegedly shows Ukrainian forces killing Russian prisoners as they lie on the ground, appeared to be “highly likely to be authentic”.
-
You are from "Europe". Right? So fill us in. The video of Ukranians killing Russian POWs is on You Tube. Do your socialist masters allow you to access that in "Europe"?
"The UN human rights chief said on Friday that videos showing Ukrainian soldiers executing Russian prisoners of war appear to be "authentic" and called for allegations of summary executions on both sides to be fully investigated.
Volker Turk said the video, which has been circulating on social media and allegedly shows Ukrainian forces killing Russian prisoners as they lie on the ground, appeared to be “highly likely to be authentic”.
You are from "Europe". Right?
You don't know the difference between living somewhere and being from somewhere?
The video of Ukranians killing Russian POWs is on You Tube.
So, it wasn't suppressed after all... So much for your BS rethoric.
Do your socialist masters allow you to access that in "Europe"?
Who exactly are my "socialist masters"?
"The UN human rights chief said on Friday that videos showing Ukrainian soldiers executing Russian prisoners of war appear to be "authentic" and called for allegations of summary executions on both sides to be fully investigated.
Volker Turk said the video, which has been circulating on social media and allegedly shows Ukrainian forces killing Russian prisoners as they lie on the ground, appeared to be “highly likely to be authentic”.
"appear to be "authentic"" ?
"appeared to be “highly likely to be authentic”."?
Wow...
But let's get real here for a minute. If Ukrainian soldiers executed Russian P.O.W.'s, it's a war crime and should be investigated, just like the countless times when Russian soldiers raped Ukrainian women, killed civilians in the streets and bombed hospitals and civilian shelters.
But you only care about a couple of Ukrainian soldiers killing 12 Russian soldiers P.O.W.'s after one of them opened fire on them, right?
-
You are from "Europe". Right?
You don't know the difference between living somewhere and being from somewhere?
The video of Ukranians killing Russian POWs is on You Tube.
So, it wasn't suppressed after all... So much for your BS rethoric.
Do your socialist masters allow you to access that in "Europe"?
Who exactly are my "socialist masters"?
"The UN human rights chief said on Friday that videos showing Ukrainian soldiers executing Russian prisoners of war appear to be "authentic" and called for allegations of summary executions on both sides to be fully investigated.
Volker Turk said the video, which has been circulating on social media and allegedly shows Ukrainian forces killing Russian prisoners as they lie on the ground, appeared to be “highly likely to be authentic”.
"appear to be "authentic"" ?
"appeared to be “highly likely to be authentic”."?
Wow...
But let's get real here for a minute. If Ukrainian soldiers executed Russian P.O.W.'s, it's a war crime and should be investigated, just like the countless times when Russian soldiers raped Ukrainian women, killed civilians in the streets and bombed hospitals and civilian shelters.
But you only care about a couple of Ukrainian soldiers killing 12 Russian soldiers P.O.W.'s after one of them opened fire on them, right?
Translation: Martin who allegedly lives in "Europe" didn't realize that the Ukranians were executing POWs. Then he claims the story wasn't being suppressed because I brought it to his attention! HA HA HA. Comedy gold. You can't make that level of stupidity up.
-
Translation: Martin who allegedly lives in "Europe" didn't realize that the Ukranians were executing POWs. Then he claims the story wasn't being suppressed because I brought it to his attention! HA HA HA. Comedy gold. You can't make that level of stupidity up.
Martin who allegedly lives in "Europe" didn't realize that the Ukranians were executing POWs.
Only an idiot would think that people living in Europe (yes, it actually exists, there's no need for quotation marks) have to be fully aware of everything that goes on in the world and/or youtube.
He doesn't even understand that, unlike him, I have a life.
Then he claims the story wasn't being suppressed because I brought it to his attention!
Only an idiot would think that he can claim a story is being suppressed when it can be seen on YouTube and a UN human rights chief talks about it to the media.
He clearly doesn't understand he could only point it out to me because it wasn't suppressed to begin with.
-
The US news media has an agenda on this story. They report only news sympathetic to Ukraine.
Totally agree. I've never seen such one-sided news coverage of a war that the US wasn't directly participating in.
A few months ago, CBS retracted a news story because it mentioned that up to 30% of the aid was getting lost or not reaching Ukraine. It looked like CBS had pulled the story due to public pressure (and possibly pressure from the Biden administration). Either way, the MSM has gone out of their way to avoid negative Press about Ukraine's government.
CBS partially retracts documentary that outraged Ukraine by claiming that US weapon shipments were going missing
https://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-partially-retracts-ukraine-docuemtnary-alleging-missing-us-weapons-2022-8
-
Totally agree. I've never seen such one-sided news coverage of a war that the US wasn't directly participating in.
A few months ago, CBS retracted a news story because it mentioned that up to 30% of the aid was getting lost or not reaching Ukraine. It looked like CBS had pulled the story due to public pressure (and possibly pressure from the Biden administration). Either way, the MSM has gone out of their way to avoid negative Press about Ukraine's government.
CBS partially retracts documentary that outraged Ukraine by claiming that US weapon shipments were going missing
https://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-partially-retracts-ukraine-docuemtnary-alleging-missing-us-weapons-2022-8
It looked like CBS had pulled the story due to public pressure (and possibly pressure from the Biden administration).
It looked like? Oh well, that settles it.... :D
-
It looked like CBS had pulled the story due to public pressure (and possibly pressure from the Biden administration).
It looked like? Oh well, that settles it.... :D
I honestly don’t know why CBS partially retracted the story. It was just odd that they did it following a public outcry from the Ukrainian government and their supporters.
Just one of the many unusual things about how the mainstream media has covered this his war.
-
I honestly don’t know why CBS partially retracted the story. It was just odd that they did it following a public outcry from the Ukrainian government and their supporters.
Just one of the many unusual things about how the mainstream media has covered this his war.
Why not consider the possibility that they simply learned that the story wasn't as credible as they initially thought it was?
-
Why not consider the possibility that they simply learned that the story wasn't as credible as they initially thought it was?
It was a very credible story. They only added a foot note that things may have improved since April 2022 when the documentary was made:
Among the material removed was a quote the founder of pro-Ukraine nonprofit Blue-Yellow, Jonas Ohman, who said in late April that only around 30% of aid was reaching the front lines in Ukraine.
CBS said that "Since that time, Ohman says delivery has improved." It also noted that the US had sent an official — Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon — to Kyiv specifically to monitor the use of military aid.
They never explained how much things had improved or claimed that the problem was solved.
-
It was a very credible story. They only added a foot note that things may have improved since April 2022 when the documentary was made:
Among the material removed was a quote the founder of pro-Ukraine nonprofit Blue-Yellow, Jonas Ohman, who said in late April that only around 30% of aid was reaching the front lines in Ukraine.
CBS said that "Since that time, Ohman says delivery has improved." It also noted that the US had sent an official — Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon — to Kyiv specifically to monitor the use of military aid.
They never explained how much things had improved or claimed that the problem was solved.
It was a very credible story.
And you know this, how?
From what you told me, it seems that Mr. Ohman has been backpedaling his original claim. Why could it not simply be that Ohman's original claim wasn't as credible as you seem to believe it was?
-
Why not consider the possibility that they simply learned that the story wasn't as credible as they initially thought it was?
It was a very credible story. They only added a foot note that things may have improved since April 2022 when the documentary was made:
. . .
The success of the Ukrainians, in taking back over 1,000 square miles of territory east of Kharkiv, the taking back of Kherson makes this story very non credible. The only divergence of aid to Ukraine is being used to rout the Russians.
When was the last time the Russian's managed to grab a 1,000 square miles of territory with a one week period? Or within a six month period? By coincidence, back to before Ukraine got significant aid, during the spring. Since this aid arrived, no such Russian sucesses. I don't think it's a coincidence. It appears that the great bulk of this aid is not being squadered and is being used to great effect.
There is not only good evidence that a lot of aid to Afghanistan was squadered, but this theory was supported by the easy rout of the Afghanistan army by the Taliban. I see no such support for the theory that our aid to Ukraine is being squadered. The success of the Ukrainians refutes this. And makes this story: non credible.
-
Martin who allegedly lives in "Europe" didn't realize that the Ukranians were executing POWs.
Only an idiot would think that people living in Europe (yes, it actually exists, there's no need for quotation marks) have to be fully aware of everything that goes on in the world and/or youtube.
He doesn't even understand that, unlike him, I have a life.
Then he claims the story wasn't being suppressed because I brought it to his attention!
Only an idiot would think that he can claim a story is being suppressed when it can be seen on YouTube and a UN human rights chief talks about it to the media.
He clearly doesn't understand he could only point it out to me because it wasn't suppressed to begin with.
Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed. Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it. HA HA HA. Comedy gold. Your profound ignorance of the topic is more proof of my point. So hilarious. Here is the point, however, for anyone with a functional brain. The mainstream US press did not cover the story. That is where most people get their news on Ukraine. They do not scour You Tube every day looking for posts (which even You Tube buries) searching for obscure stories on Ukraine's treatment of POWs. Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media. If the Russians had been taped executing Ukranian prisoners, the story would have run hourly on CNN and MSNBC for weeks. They have an agenda. It is endless war.
-
It was a very credible story.
And you know this, how?
Other sources have made similar claims. Also, Ukraine currently is cleaning house due to corruption scandals within their government.
So just to reiterate the earlier point, the 30% figure was true in April when the CBS documentary was made. Maybe things improved but we don't know that for certain.
Ukraine now appears to be cleaning house because their corruption continued well after they began receiving large amounts of aid from Western countries.
AP: Ukraine corruption scandal claims several top officials
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-government-30e547e614babcacff2e68cecd62b551
-
The success of the Ukrainians, in taking back over 1,000 square miles of territory east of Kharkiv, the taking back of Kherson makes this story very non credible. The only divergence of aid to Ukraine is being used to rout the Russians.
When was the last time the Russian's managed to grab a 1,000 square miles of territory with a one week period? Or within a six month period? By coincidence, back to before Ukraine got significant aid, during the spring. Since this aid arrived, no such Russian sucesses. I don't think it's a coincidence. It appears that the great bulk of this aid is not being squadered and is being used to great effect.
Ukraine was able to quickly liberate Kharkiv and half of Kherson because the Russians so far have avoided allowing their troops to be surrounded and captured or killed in huge numbers. In contrast, Ukraine has fought to the last man in many battles. It's estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 Ukrainians have been killed in action so far.
I don't think anyone at this point underestimates the bravery and willingness to fight on the Ukrainian side. However, it takes more than that for them to defeat the world's second or third largest military. Unless the US or NATO directly intervenes, a stalemate is the best-case scenario for Ukraine in this war. They will not militarily defeat Russia, a country that has three times more people and doesn't need to rely on other countries for military and financial aid.
Ukraine started this war with over 2000 tanks? What happened to their tanks? Why are they begging western countries for tanks all the sudden? Why are they begging for aircraft and air defenses? They had all those things when the war began. Obviously, Russia destroyed most of the weapons and ammo that Ukraine had at the start of the war. Which is why I remain doubtful that the new weapons we're sending to Ukraine will fundamentally change the path they're on from a potential stalemate to Ukraine outright winning the war...
-
Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed. Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it. HA HA HA. Comedy gold. Your profound ignorance of the topic is more proof of my point. So hilarious. Here is the point, however, for anyone with a functional brain. The mainstream US press did not cover the story. That is where most people get their news on Ukraine. They do not scour You Tube every day looking for posts (which even You Tube buries) searching for obscure stories on Ukraine's treatment of POWs. Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media. If the Russians had been taped executing Ukranian prisoners, the story would have run hourly on CNN and MSNBC for weeks. They have an agenda. It is endless war.
So much stupidity, it's beyond hilarious.
Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed.
You don't even understand the contradiction in terms applied here! :D
Let me dumb it down as much as I can for you. A video that is available for viewing, regardless where, isn't suppressed! Perhaps some outlets did not use it, but that doesn't alter the fact that the video was available to them.
Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it.
This obsession of yours with where I live is really getting out of hand. Get some help! And while you are at it, get your head examined as well. There clearly is something wrong with it, when you believe that where somebody lives determines what he should or should not be aware of. As I said before, unlike you, I have a life and far better things to do than watch YouTube videos all the time.
The mainstream US press did not cover the story.
So what? Did Fox cover it? I can't find a single video about it on YouTube
Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media.
Pathetically hilarious. Your bias is showing. US media may have ignored the story (if that's what happened), but you can't suppress a video that's already out there in the public domain.
-
On the numerous videos of Russian POWs being tortured or killed by Ukrainian forces, no, the mainstream media didn't censor those stories.
The NY Times covered one such incident in-depth last November
Videos Suggest Captive Russian Soldiers Were Killed at Close Range
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/20/world/europe/russian-soldiers-shot-ukraine.html
What they did was express more skepticism than they typically do when Russian war crimes are alleged and they didn't give these stories as much coverage as alleged war crimes by Russian forces.
All of this is to say that the media, at least here in the US, has been one-sided or heavily biased in favor of Ukraine. Which is fine and understandable but it's something that could paint a misleading narrative of what is going on in Ukraine and I believe it does. Many Americans believe Ukraine is winning the war in spite of their dire need for more money and weapons.
-
So much stupidity, it's beyond hilarious.
Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed.
You don't even understand the contradiction in terms applied here! :D
Let me dumb it down as much as I can for you. A video that is available for viewing, regardless where, isn't suppressed! Perhaps some outlets did not use it, but that doesn't alter the fact that the video was available to them.
Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it.
This obsession of yours with where I live is really getting out of hand. Get some help! And while you are at it, get your head examined as well. There clearly is something wrong with it, when you believe that where somebody lives determines what he should or should not be aware of. As I said before, unlike you, I have a life and far better things to do than watch YouTube videos all the time.
The mainstream US press did not cover the story.
So what? Did Fox cover it? I can't find a single video about it on YouTube
Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media.
Pathetically hilarious. Your bias is showing. US media may have ignored the story (if that's what happened), but you can't suppress a video that's already out there in the public domain.
Whew. You don't understand the difference between someone posting a video on You Tube and the mainstream media running it as a major story. HA HA HA. It's just another day in "Europe" going down the rabbit hole of ignorance.
-
Whew. You don't understand the difference between someone posting a video on You Tube and the mainstream media running it as a major story. HA HA HA. It's just another day in "Europe" going down the rabbit hole of ignorance.
More stupidity on full display. Mainstream media not running a story, that's already out there, is not suppressing a story!
-
More stupidity on full display. Mainstream media not running a story, that's already out there, is not suppressing a story!
You should work for Facebook with logic like that. Unreal. Suppression, of course, is different than total censorship. Maybe you have lived in "Europe" too long to understand the obvious distinction. Suppression means that dissemination is limited. And how exactly would anyone know what stories are being completely censored since they would never be known? Logic doesn't play any role in the contrarian fantasy world, however.
-
You should work for Facebook with logic like that. Unreal. Suppression, of course, is different than total censorship. Maybe you have lived in "Europe" too long to understand the obvious distinction. Suppression means that dissemination is limited. And how exactly would anyone know what stories are being completely censored since they would never be known? Logic doesn't play any role in the contrarian fantasy world, however.
A story that is being suppressed doesn't see the light of day.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suppression
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppression
Suppression is censorship. You can not censor or suppress a story that's already in the public domain!
It's utterly amazing that something so obvious needs to be explained to you.
Care to try again?
-
A story that is being suppressed doesn't see the light of day.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suppression
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppression
Suppression is censorship. You can not censor or suppress a story that's already in the public domain!
It's utterly amazing that something so obvious needs to be explained to you.
Care to try again?
-
It didn't take long for the war mongers to begin clamoring for jet fighters. The endless escalation of this conflict begs the ultimate question:
What happens when the choice narrows to Ukraine being overrun or sending in US and NATO ground forces? What then?
-
It didn't take long for the war mongers to begin clamoring for jet fighters. The endless escalation of this conflict begs the ultimate question:
What happens when the choice narrows to Ukraine being overrun or sending in US and NATO ground forces? What then?
I don't see a trend leading to Ukraine being overrun. The Russians take months of a slow steady push to take Bakhmut before they are finally just able to take, ... Soledar, a pre-war town on 3,000. The great task of taking Bakhmut, a pre-war town of 10,000, will have to await another day. But if they are finally able to take Bakhmut, who knows what they may be able to accomplish next. The sky is the limit. They might even be able to take a town of 15,000 before Trump gets trashed in the elections of 2024.
The Russians have nothing to compare to the Ukrainian swift taking over of the large areas east of Kharkiv and Kherson. At this rate of Russian advance, the glaciers of the next Ice Age will overtake Moscow before Russia will overrun Ukraine.
But what happens if there is some sort of miracle reversal and Ukraine is on the verge of being overrun? Do we send in NATO ground forces? No. This is Ukraine's fight. No NATO forces will be sent in unless Russia attacks a NATO country, or uses a Nuclear bomb, or poison gas, or biological weapons. If Ukraine loses, Ukraine loses.
Which is why we need to make certain that we send enough. We should send in the jets Ukraine requests. All our expenditures, are a fraction of our yearly spending on defense, about 6 per cent. We should send in 10 per cent each year. And cut down our defense spending by 10 per cent. Surely, with Russia so occupied with Ukraine, we can cut down our defense spending by that much.
This aid to Ukraine is one of the best deals the U. S. has ever gotten. For just 6 per cent of our military budget, the Russian army is trashed, and the danger of Russia overrunning central Europe is greatly diminished for now and years to come. If we could spend another 6 per cent that would decimate China's military, making it impossible for them to invade Taiwan for the next several years, I would do it.
Just think what a great deal it would have been in 1938, if 6 per cent of the U. S. defense spending in 1938 could have been used to trash Germany's army, making it impossible for them to successfully invade Poland or France. And another 6 per cent spent to trash the Japanese navy, making an attack on Pearl Harbor impossible. Wouldn't that have been worth doing had it been an option? Why is this a bad option, for the U. S. in 2022-2023?
-
I don't see a trend leading to Ukraine being overrun. The Russians take months of a slow steady push to take Bakhmut before they are finally just able to take, ... Soledar, a pre-war town on 3,000. The great task of taking Bakhmut, a pre-war town of 10,000, will have to await another day. But if they are finally able to take Bakhmut, who knows what they may be able to accomplish next. The sky is the limit. They might even be able to take a town of 15,000 before Trump gets trashed in the elections of 2024.
The Russians have nothing to compare to the Ukrainian swift taking over of the large areas east of Kharkiv and Kherson. At this rate of Russian advance, the glaciers of the next Ice Age will overtake Moscow before Russia will overrun Ukraine.
But what happens if there is some sort of miracle reversal and Ukraine is on the verge of being overrun? Do we send in NATO ground forces? No. This is Ukraine's fight. No NATO forces will be sent in unless Russia attacks a NATO country, or uses a Nuclear bomb, or poison gas, or biological weapons. If Ukraine loses, Ukraine loses.
Which is why we need to make certain that we send enough. We should send in the jets Ukraine requests. All our expenditures, are a fraction of our yearly spending on defense, about 6 per cent. We should send in 10 per cent each year. And cut down our defense spending by 10 per cent. Surely, with Russia so occupied with Ukraine, we can cut down our defense spending by that much.
This aid to Ukraine is one of the best deals the U. S. has ever gotten. For just 6 per cent of our military budget, the Russian army is trashed, and the danger of Russia overrunning central Europe is greatly diminished for now and years to come. If we could spend another 6 per cent that would decimate China's military, making it impossible for them to invade Taiwan for the next several years, I would do it.
Just think what a great deal it would have been in 1938, if 6 per cent of the U. S. defense spending in 1938 could have been used to trash Germany's army, making it impossible for them to successfully invade Poland or France. And another 6 per cent spent to trash the Japanese navy, making an attack on Pearl Harbor impossible. Wouldn't that have been worth doing had it been an option? Why is this a bad option, for the U. S. in 2022-2023?
I didn't realize how lucky we were to be paying for another endless regional conflict. We have only spent over $100 billion with no end in sight. Very rosy. Let's send those jets. Maybe there will be another war soon and we can send more billions there. And then another. This has really worked out well for the US in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam. Don't see how it could go wrong. And escalation with a nuclear power like Russia can only get better and better over time.
-
It didn't take long for the war mongers to begin clamoring for jet fighters. The endless escalation of this conflict begs the ultimate question:
What happens when the choice narrows to Ukraine being overrun or sending in US and NATO ground forces? What then?
These folks have no idea how long it takes to train pilots on F-16s. They're living in fantasy land.
----------
The Basic course at the F-16 schoolhouse at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., takes about 9 months and includes academics, simulation training, and flight sorties. But even before students arrive at Luke, they must complete six months of basic flight training in the T-6, seven months in the T-38, and six to eight weeks learning basic fighter fundamentals and advanced fighter maneuvers in the AT-38.
Drozdov said the Soviet-made Polish MiGs had received some upgrades to meet NATO standards but that they still have “outdated radar and missile technologies.”
“Pilots would continue to be sitting ducks in these planes—easy targets for the enemy,” he wrote.
The U.S. Air Force’s 2023 budget plans to retire more than 200 F-15s, but the Air Force considers the aircraft to be beyond their useful service life, and in some cases, the aircraft have safety of flight issues and can no longer fly.
At an April 28 background briefing, a senior defense official told Air Force Magazine that the United States continues to provide or facilitate the transfer of Soviet-era spare parts to keep Ukrainian jets flying.
“This is an air force that relies principally on old Soviet aircraft. That’s what they’re used to flying. That’s what they’ve got in their fleet. That’s what we’re trying to help them keep in the air,” the official said. “I’m not going to speculate about the future of aircraft deliveries one way or the other.”
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ukraine-wants-f-16s-but-usaf-officials-say-thats-not-a-recipe-for-success/
That's just for F-16 pilots. Maintenance and logistics teams need training too and that can't happen over night.
-
These folks have no idea how long it takes to train pilots on F-16s. They're living in fantasy land.
----------
The Basic course at the F-16 schoolhouse at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., takes about 9 months and includes academics, simulation training, and flight sorties. But even before students arrive at Luke, they must complete six months of basic flight training in the T-6, seven months in the T-38, and six to eight weeks learning basic fighter fundamentals and advanced fighter maneuvers in the AT-38.
Drozdov said the Soviet-made Polish MiGs had received some upgrades to meet NATO standards but that they still have “outdated radar and missile technologies.”
“Pilots would continue to be sitting ducks in these planes—easy targets for the enemy,” he wrote.
The U.S. Air Force’s 2023 budget plans to retire more than 200 F-15s, but the Air Force considers the aircraft to be beyond their useful service life, and in some cases, the aircraft have safety of flight issues and can no longer fly.
At an April 28 background briefing, a senior defense official told Air Force Magazine that the United States continues to provide or facilitate the transfer of Soviet-era spare parts to keep Ukrainian jets flying.
“This is an air force that relies principally on old Soviet aircraft. That’s what they’re used to flying. That’s what they’ve got in their fleet. That’s what we’re trying to help them keep in the air,” the official said. “I’m not going to speculate about the future of aircraft deliveries one way or the other.”
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ukraine-wants-f-16s-but-usaf-officials-say-thats-not-a-recipe-for-success/
That's just for F-16 pilots. Maintenance and logistics teams need training too and that can't happen over night.
Yes, they will obviously need US advisors on the ground soon to operate and maintain all these weapons. That is the next step in the Vietnam-like escalation before sending in the ground troops. The goal is to send just enough support to keep Ukraine from being overrun and extending the conflict for as long as possible. And the more resources that are sunk into the effort, the harder it becomes to admit a mistake and pull out. Ensuring that this goes on and on funneling billions to military contractors for years to come. Why does there appear to be no diplomatic effort to find some sort of resolution? Why not send Obama and Trump to Moscow? Or anything that might begin a way to end the conflict. Most likely because the goal of many in DC is not to end it but to extend it. They benefit from the money flowing to this effort and have residual Cold War bias against Russia that they are finally being allowed to exercise.
-
Very good article on U. S. aid to Ukraine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-help-for-ukrainians-is-extremely-cheap-considering-what-they-re-accomplishing/ar-AA177cDp?ocid=Peregrine&cvid=72e030b68a414a42863d6ea4930c8587
Washington Examiner
US help for Ukrainians is extremely cheap, considering what they're accomplishing
Opinion by David Freddoso • February 3, 2023 2:06 PM
Every now and then, I hear a piece of commentary about the Ukraine war that makes it sound like we are repeating all the same mistakes we made in Iraq. I absolutely do not believe this is the case.
The Iraq War was an ideological war that we chose to fight. It was also a war that we fought with our own military. These two facts make it fundamentally different from our current indirect intervention in Ukraine.
Here's another difference: the proponents of the Iraq War wanted to see the U.S. spread freedom and democracy to parts of the world where they had never existed. They said so at the time. They also demonized anyone who disagreed with them.
This week, on my friend Derek Hunter's radio show, I had the opportunity to make the case in favor of the support we are currently providing to Ukraine against the Russian invaders. I'd like to restate that case here without going into too much detail, simply because I think it is a mistake for realist or non-interventionist thinkers to reflexively draw such an equivalence between Iraq and Ukraine.
Iraq was a disaster, of course. The cliche at that time was that you could not spread freedom and democracy at gunpoint. The more accurate criticism was probably that you cannot impose a democratic order and the rule of law overnight in a country that has never had either, and whose residents don't necessarily seem interested.
As a consequence, the Iraq invasion was not only costly in terms of American blood and treasure, and in Iraqi lives taken as collateral damage, but also in the dramatic destabilization of the region. The rise of Iran is our fault. We may have caused millions of Arab Christians to be driven from their homeland. The Iraq War was a calamity, a textbook case for a non-interventionist foreign policy, or at least for rejection of idealistic notions of spreading freedom and democracy by waging war.
What is happening in Ukraine now is completely different — for us, anyway. We did not invade, nor did we start the war, nor are we siding with those who did. Nor, in fact, are we trying to spread any idealistic vision. Rather, Russia is pursuing an interventionist foreign policy, advancing the other of the two competing visions for the world's future. The Russian and Chinese authoritarian model for the future is a world where there is no rule of law, no human rights, no privacy, and certainly no democracy. If their model succeeds, your social credit score will determine what you are allowed to do and where you are allowed to go. The American vision is the one we are used to for ourselves. We cannot and should not impose it, but what if others try to adopt it for themselves? Should we let them be destroyed without a fight?
In Ukraine, Russia is trying to spread its anti-democratic model of the world order at the barrel of a gun. If anything, this is their Iraq, and it's going for them even worse than ours did for us. We have not had to answer the Russians' aggression ourselves. No one is being forced to go overseas to defend Ukraine; no American is being forced to die for Ukraine.
For a very long time now, Russia has been a looming threat at the periphery of American and Western influence. Suddenly, thanks to Vladimir Putin's greedy ambition, it has run up against an enemy that is willing to do all the work in fighting and defending itself. The Ukrainians are staring down the second-greatest anti-freedom force in the world, which happens to be our own chief geopolitical foe, as Mitt Romney put it in a presidential debate more than a decade ago.
The Ukrainians are willing to do all the work and shed all the blood. All we have to do is give them the weapons — often just hand-me-downs that our own servicemen won't be using anyway.
Obviously, anti-corruption measures are perfectly appropriate. Nobody deserves a blank check for anything when taxpayer money is involved. But the investment we are making in Ukraine right now is giving back one of the best returns we could possibly hope for. We are helping a friend drown the Russian army in the bathtub of its own hyper-ambition, incompetence, and corruption. And we are able to do it for pennies on the dollar.
As far as conservative arguments that Russia is somehow a defender of traditional values, nothing could be further from the truth. This is the old Soviet Empire using old Soviet tactics. Russia is an even more corrupt country than Ukraine, and it also happens to be the abortion capital of the world. The Putin regime's campaigns of international assassinations and blackmail of its political opponents is anything but supportive of Western or traditional or Christian values. The phrase invoked by certain pundits (even people I respect) to disparage the Ukrainians' struggle — "World War Trans" — is just sophistry, designed to obscure, confuse, and conflate issues that have nothing to do with one another.
The bottom line is that Ukraine is proving to be a much better and more capable friend than anyone could have reasonably expected. We're lucky to have found someone so willing to defend their own freedoms, because it means that in the future we won't have to keep policing Europe every time a conflict breaks out. And when the Russians effectively cry "uncle" by begging to start negotiations before they find themselves in a significantly less favorable bargaining position, we should not try to rescue them from drowning by forcing anyone to the table.
I appreciate that this is not a non-interventionist position. But it seems to me a very practical realist position. We don't want a war with Russia, and now, we probably won't have to fight one.
And again, we are not trying to spread some kind of American ideology of freedom, but rather helping an aspiring free people defend their own freedoms — and evidently, they value such freedoms a lot more than Iraqis ever did. If we can defang the Russian Bear at a fraction of the cost of going to war ourselves, through the agency of someone with a genuinely justified and righteous defensive war, I just don't see the downside.
-
Very good article on U. S. aid to Ukraine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-help-for-ukrainians-is-extremely-cheap-considering-what-they-re-accomplishing/ar-AA177cDp?ocid=Peregrine&cvid=72e030b68a414a42863d6ea4930c8587
Washington Examiner
US help for Ukrainians is extremely cheap, considering what they're accomplishing
Opinion by David Freddoso • February 3, 2023 2:06 PM
Every now and then, I hear a piece of commentary about the Ukraine war that makes it sound like we are repeating all the same mistakes we made in Iraq. I absolutely do not believe this is the case.
The Iraq War was an ideological war that we chose to fight. It was also a war that we fought with our own military. These two facts make it fundamentally different from our current indirect intervention in Ukraine.
Here's another difference: the proponents of the Iraq War wanted to see the U.S. spread freedom and democracy to parts of the world where they had never existed. They said so at the time. They also demonized anyone who disagreed with them.
This week, on my friend Derek Hunter's radio show, I had the opportunity to make the case in favor of the support we are currently providing to Ukraine against the Russian invaders. I'd like to restate that case here without going into too much detail, simply because I think it is a mistake for realist or non-interventionist thinkers to reflexively draw such an equivalence between Iraq and Ukraine.
Iraq was a disaster, of course. The cliche at that time was that you could not spread freedom and democracy at gunpoint. The more accurate criticism was probably that you cannot impose a democratic order and the rule of law overnight in a country that has never had either, and whose residents don't necessarily seem interested.
As a consequence, the Iraq invasion was not only costly in terms of American blood and treasure, and in Iraqi lives taken as collateral damage, but also in the dramatic destabilization of the region. The rise of Iran is our fault. We may have caused millions of Arab Christians to be driven from their homeland. The Iraq War was a calamity, a textbook case for a non-interventionist foreign policy, or at least for rejection of idealistic notions of spreading freedom and democracy by waging war.
What is happening in Ukraine now is completely different — for us, anyway. We did not invade, nor did we start the war, nor are we siding with those who did. Nor, in fact, are we trying to spread any idealistic vision. Rather, Russia is pursuing an interventionist foreign policy, advancing the other of the two competing visions for the world's future. The Russian and Chinese authoritarian model for the future is a world where there is no rule of law, no human rights, no privacy, and certainly no democracy. If their model succeeds, your social credit score will determine what you are allowed to do and where you are allowed to go. The American vision is the one we are used to for ourselves. We cannot and should not impose it, but what if others try to adopt it for themselves? Should we let them be destroyed without a fight?
In Ukraine, Russia is trying to spread its anti-democratic model of the world order at the barrel of a gun. If anything, this is their Iraq, and it's going for them even worse than ours did for us. We have not had to answer the Russians' aggression ourselves. No one is being forced to go overseas to defend Ukraine; no American is being forced to die for Ukraine.
For a very long time now, Russia has been a looming threat at the periphery of American and Western influence. Suddenly, thanks to Vladimir Putin's greedy ambition, it has run up against an enemy that is willing to do all the work in fighting and defending itself. The Ukrainians are staring down the second-greatest anti-freedom force in the world, which happens to be our own chief geopolitical foe, as Mitt Romney put it in a presidential debate more than a decade ago.
The Ukrainians are willing to do all the work and shed all the blood. All we have to do is give them the weapons — often just hand-me-downs that our own servicemen won't be using anyway.
Obviously, anti-corruption measures are perfectly appropriate. Nobody deserves a blank check for anything when taxpayer money is involved. But the investment we are making in Ukraine right now is giving back one of the best returns we could possibly hope for. We are helping a friend drown the Russian army in the bathtub of its own hyper-ambition, incompetence, and corruption. And we are able to do it for pennies on the dollar.
As far as conservative arguments that Russia is somehow a defender of traditional values, nothing could be further from the truth. This is the old Soviet Empire using old Soviet tactics. Russia is an even more corrupt country than Ukraine, and it also happens to be the abortion capital of the world. The Putin regime's campaigns of international assassinations and blackmail of its political opponents is anything but supportive of Western or traditional or Christian values. The phrase invoked by certain pundits (even people I respect) to disparage the Ukrainians' struggle — "World War Trans" — is just sophistry, designed to obscure, confuse, and conflate issues that have nothing to do with one another.
The bottom line is that Ukraine is proving to be a much better and more capable friend than anyone could have reasonably expected. We're lucky to have found someone so willing to defend their own freedoms, because it means that in the future we won't have to keep policing Europe every time a conflict breaks out. And when the Russians effectively cry "uncle" by begging to start negotiations before they find themselves in a significantly less favorable bargaining position, we should not try to rescue them from drowning by forcing anyone to the table.
I appreciate that this is not a non-interventionist position. But it seems to me a very practical realist position. We don't want a war with Russia, and now, we probably won't have to fight one.
And again, we are not trying to spread some kind of American ideology of freedom, but rather helping an aspiring free people defend their own freedoms — and evidently, they value such freedoms a lot more than Iraqis ever did. If we can defang the Russian Bear at a fraction of the cost of going to war ourselves, through the agency of someone with a genuinely justified and righteous defensive war, I just don't see the downside.
The fundamental flaw in Vietnam, Afghanistan and many other regional conflicts was not to understand the underlying reason for the war and the limitations of military intervention. These conflicts have centuries of history with political, religious, and cultural implications that Americans can never fully appreciate. They cannot be resolved through war. It's questionable that many can be solved at all. Only time can do that. Ukraine is not a democracy. The concept is as foreign to them as it was to Iraq or Afghanistan. Americans were sold a narrative on those conflicts (i.e. fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction). Many believed in those lies until the end. The same propaganda machine with almost the identical individuals promoting it are selling another narrative in Ukraine. An emotional appeal based loosely on supporting democracy but what is really just a continuation of the relentless anti-Trump narrative that tried desperately to link him is some vague way to Putin. The momentum from the fake Russian collusion conspiracy and claim that Trump was opposed to democracy fed into the appeal to support Ukraine. That is a fundamental reason that leftists - who traditionally opposed such endless wars - are among the most ardent supporters of Ukraine. Russia is a proxy for Trump.
-
Russia’s Weapons Game in Ukraine Hits a Dismal New Low
Story by: Shannon Vavra
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-s-weapons-game-in-ukraine-hits-a-dismal-new-low/ar-AA18XnI7?cvid=445168a18dbb421aab144fe90d369bc2&ei=50
Russia has taken Soviet-era tanks from the 1940s and 1950s out of storage for its war in Ukraine in the latest sign that the invasion is floundering, according to researches from the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT).
The weapons, T-54 tanks and either late T-54 or early T-55 tanks, are being sent on a train westward from the Russia's Far East, according to photographs the CIT shared Wednesday.
I understand that these tanks were manufactured back in the 1940s and 1950s.
As Russia's tank loses mount up much faster than current production can match. Russia has lost about 1,600 tanks in a year of fighting. It can only manufacture about 250 tanks per year. Hence, the Russian tank fleet is getting ever more obsolete over time, with older and older models which were not part of the initial invasion in Feburary 2022.Before this war is over, we may be seeing tank battles between Ukrainian Abrams, Leopard 2 and 1's going against Russian T-34s and T-26s. :)
Article on Russian tank losses and Russian tank production:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/02/17/the-russian-army-could-run-out-of-tanks-in-a-few-years-what-happens-then/?sh=75da95202061
-
Russia’s Weapons Game in Ukraine Hits a Dismal New Low
Story by: Shannon Vavra
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-s-weapons-game-in-ukraine-hits-a-dismal-new-low/ar-AA18XnI7?cvid=445168a18dbb421aab144fe90d369bc2&ei=50
I understand that these tanks were manufactured back in the 1940s and 1950s.
As Russia's tank loses mount up much faster than current production can match. Russia has lost about 1,600 tanks in a year of fighting. It can only manufacture about 250 tanks per year. Hence, the Russian tank fleet is getting ever more obsolete over time, with older and older models which were not part of the initial invasion in Feburary 2022.Before this war is over, we may be seeing tank battles between Ukrainian Abrams, Leopard 2 and 1's going against Russian T-34s and T-26s. :)
Article on Russian tank losses and Russian tank production:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/02/17/the-russian-army-could-run-out-of-tanks-in-a-few-years-what-happens-then/?sh=75da95202061
As I recall, the Russians did pretty well with those tanks in the 1940s. Putin has tried to fight this war on the cheap. Using prisoners and ill trained soldiers from the hinterlands. The most expendable types from a political perspective. Once he loses patience, the Russians will overrun Ukraine very quickly. Ukraine Joe has already created an alliance between Russia and China with his dangerous bungling of this situation. China has an inexhaustible supply of weapons. How long does it go on before the US makes any effort to broker a settlement? There are estimates of over 100K dead Ukrainians already. Nearly $200 billion has been sunk into this effort from the US. How much is enough? What is the end game? Same questions that were never answered in Vietnam and Afghanistan. All I've seen is that the Russians must surrender and turn Putin over for war crimes. Not likely.
-
As I recall, the Russians did pretty well with those tanks in the 1940s. Putin has tried to fight this war on the cheap. Using prisoners and ill trained soldiers from the hinterlands. The most expendable types from a political perspective. Once he loses patience, the Russians will overrun Ukraine very quickly. Ukraine Joe has already created an alliance between Russia and China with his dangerous bungling of this situation. China has an inexhaustible supply of weapons. How long does it go on before the US makes any effort to broker a settlement? There are estimates of over 100K dead Ukrainians already. Nearly $200 billion has been sunk into this effort from the US. How much is enough? What is the end game? Same questions that were never answered in Vietnam and Afghanistan. All I've seen is that the Russians must surrender and turn Putin over for war crimes. Not likely.
As I recall, the Russians did pretty well with those tanks in the 1940s.
You recall that, do you? Really?
Oh well, in the middle ages the knights did pretty well with swords and bow and arrow.....
Putin has tried to fight this war on the cheap. Using prisoners and ill trained soldiers from the hinterlands. The most expendable types from a political perspective.
Hilarious... Where do you get this "insight"?
Once he loses patience, the Russians will overrun Ukraine very quickly.
HAHAHAHAHA... they tried it already and they couldn't make it work. You really need to rely less on Russian (i.e. Fox "news") propaganda. The Russians are completely pinned down and only attack now by firing missiles into residential areas, most of which are intercepted.
China has an inexhaustible supply of weapons.
Really? And you know this how? China has been claiming Taiwan as it's own for decades now and they haven't tried once to invade it, because of the consequences. No way China is going to risk all it's commercial interests in the West for Putin's sake. Xi Jinping outplayed Putin completely by getting him to sign more favorable trade deals with China. Xi also made it beyond clear that China has no interest in getting involved in the Ukraine conflict by supplying weapons. The economic price China would have the pay would be too great.
China may have an "inexhaustible supply of weapons" but what they don't have and won't get is the latest technology and most advanced computer chips, as the E.U. has already stopped giving ASML export licences for selling such technology to China.
But you admiration for Putin and Xi, two of the biggest enemies of the U.S., is duly noted.
-
As I recall, the Russians did pretty well with those tanks in the 1940s. Putin has tried to fight this war on the cheap. Using prisoners and ill trained soldiers from the hinterlands. The most expendable types from a political perspective. Once he loses patience, the Russians will overrun Ukraine very quickly. Ukraine Joe has already created an alliance between Russia and China with his dangerous bungling of this situation. China has an inexhaustible supply of weapons. How long does it go on before the US makes any effort to broker a settlement? There are estimates of over 100K dead Ukrainians already. Nearly $200 billion has been sunk into this effort from the US. How much is enough? What is the end game? Same questions that were never answered in Vietnam and Afghanistan. All I've seen is that the Russians must surrender and turn Putin over for war crimes. Not likely.
Not that well in the 1940s. Certainly not the T-26s. The T-34 is vastly overrated in the minds of the public. It's kill to loss ratio, even against Panzer IIIs and IVs, was terrible. And about 2.0 to 1.0 against the greatly underrated Sherman tank during the Korean war.
On paper China could send plenty of arms to Russia. But why reinforce failure? Why risk China's reputation by gambling that Russia won't waste the arms China sends, making both Russia and China seem weak? And could China really send more arms than the west can send?
On paper Russia could swap Ukraine. Just as on paper Russia could swap Germany and Austria-Hungry in World War I. Wars are not decided on paper. The years of mismanagement of the Imperial Russian army and the current Russian army, cannot be fixed with the snap of the fingers. Russia is already straining to wage the maximum conventional war. It fears using conscription more than it has. And more conscription will take away workers, reducing its already inadequate armament production.
Russia outnumbers Ukraine only 3 to 1 in population. And a disportionite number of them are not of military age. The Russian population is an ageing population without enough young people of military age. In the past Russia had military success, but with a much stronger advantage in military age males than it has now.
-
As I recall, the Russians did pretty well with those tanks in the 1940s.
You recall that, do you? Really?
Oh well, in the middle ages the knights did pretty well with swords and bow and arrow.....
Hilarious. In which Martin from "Europe" equates tanks used to defeat Hitler six decades ago with medieval weapons from 600 years ago. Great contribution. Yes, a T-34 tank is the same as a sword. HA HA HA. Keep them coming.
-
Hilarious. In which Martin from "Europe" equates tanks used to defeat Hitler six decades ago with medieval weapons from 600 years ago. Great contribution. Yes, a T-34 tank is the same as a sword. HA HA HA. Keep them coming.
I knew when I wrote it that it would go right over your head..... and it did! :D
The point I was making is a simple one. A nearly 60 80 year old tank is pretty worthless compared to modern day weapon systems, just like swords and bow and arrows stopped being useful when they started to use guns and cannons.
A T-34 tank belongs in a museum and not on a modern battleground. Get it now, or am I still going too fast for you?
-
Russia outnumbers Ukraine only 3 to 1 in population. And a disportionite number of them are not of military age. The Russian population is an ageing population without enough young people of military age. In the past Russia had military success, but with a much stronger advantage in military age males than it has now.
Russia and Ukraine have nearly identical age demographics. Both are former Soviet countries. But Russia has three times more people than Ukraine does.
(https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure2-41-w640.png)
(https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure1-52-w640.png)
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia
The bottom-line is, Russia has more manpower and an unlimited supply of weapons. Anything is possible but short of an external event, like a political collapse for Putin in Russia for example, it's unlikely that Ukraine wins this war of attrition.
-
Russia and Ukraine have nearly identical age demographics. Both are former Soviet countries. But Russia has three times more people than Ukraine does.
(https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure2-41-w640.png)
(https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure1-52-w640.png)
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia
The bottom-line is, Russia has more manpower and an unlimited supply of weapons. Anything is possible but short of an external event, like a political collapse for Putin in Russia for example, it's unlikely that Ukraine wins this war of attrition.
Who died and made you the expert?
Fact is that Russia is firing more missles at Ukraine on a daily basis than they can replace. The same goes for tanks. The latest report is that they lost 1600 tanks and can only produce 250 a year. Add to this that, because of the embargo, they are running low on critical parts for their weapon systems where Ukraine is getting fresh supplies on a regular bases and it doesn't matter anymore how much more manpower (i.e. cannonfodder) Russia has, the bottom line is that they can not win this war.
Maybe Ukraine can't either but they have something the Russians don't; resolve to save their country! This should appeal to the extreme right who claim to be all about "saving America" but somehow they don't seem to be interested.
Russia should have learned from the disaster in Afganistan that it's one thing to invade a country. It's quite another to hold on to it when the locals don't want you there!
In this case, Ukraine has the support of the entire Western World and Nato. There is no way Putin can come out on top and the sooner he understands that, the better it will be for all the world.
-
Fact is that Russia is firing more missles at Ukraine on a daily basis than they can replace.
Source?
We've been hearing that Russia would "run out of missiles" since the first few weeks of the war but it hasn't happened yet.
The same goes for tanks. The latest report is that they lost 1600 tanks and can only produce 250 a year.
Russia started the war with over 12,000 tanks. Ukraine started the war with over 2000 tanks.
12,000 Tanks: Yes Russia, Has More Armor Than America
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/12000-tanks-yes-russia-has-more-armor-america-169274
Ukraine, not Russia, is begging other countries to send tanks and ammo.
Add to this that, because of the embargo, they are running low on critical parts for their weapon systems where Ukraine is getting fresh supplies on a regular bases and it doesn't matter anymore how much more manpower (i.e. cannonfodder) Russia has, the bottom line is that they can not win this war.
Again, Ukraine, which no longer has a domestic defense industry (due to the war) is in a much worse position than Russia. The aid from other countries creates logistical problems as Ukraine doesn't have the replacement parts to maintain and repair non-Soviet or Russian weapons. So when hardware breaks down, it gets sent to Poland for maintenance.
The sanctions are an obstacle for Russia but it's not an obstacle that can't be overcome via trade with China or buying supplies from the Black market. Economic sanctions are a notoriously ineffective tool.
Why Sanctions Too Often Fail
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-sanctions-too-often-fail
Maybe Ukraine can't either but they have something the Russians don't; resolve to save their country! This should appeal to the extreme right who claim to be all about "saving America" but somehow they don't seem to be interested.
Ukraine's Resolve may be enough to keep the Russians from conquering all of Ukraine but it likely won't be enough to prevent Putin from taking 1/4 or 1/3 of their territory.
There's strength in numbers and Russia has the numbers in manpower and military hardware.
It's totally tragic what is happening to Ukraine but short of direct intervention by NATO, I don't see a way for them to win this war via military force.
-
Source?
We've been hearing that Russia would "run out of missiles" since the first few weeks of the war but it hasn't happened yet.
In a conflict like this, there is uncertainty about anything, but, according to independent European media, recently Russia has reduced the number of missiles fired at Ukraine.
Russia started the war with over 12,000 tanks. Ukraine started the war with over 2000 tanks.
And still they didn't manage to take over the country.... Go figure!
12,000 Tanks: Yes Russia, Has More Armor Than America
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/12000-tanks-yes-russia-has-more-armor-america-169274
Perhaps a better word to use is "had more armour"
Ukraine, not Russia, is begging other countries to send tanks and ammo.
Of course they do.... they didn't expect to be invaded by Russia and are in need of help.
Again, Ukraine, which no longer has a domestic defense industry (due to the war) is in a much worse position than Russia. The aid from other countries creates logistical problems as Ukraine doesn't have the replacement parts to maintain and repair non-Soviet or Russian weapons. So when hardware breaks down, it gets sent to Poland for maintenance.
Again, who died and made you an expert?
The sanctions are an obstacle for Russia but it's not an obstacle that can't be overcome via trade with China or buying supplies from the Black market. Economic sanctions are a notoriously ineffective tool.
Why Sanctions Too Often Fail
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-sanctions-too-often-fail
An obstacle? They are using computer chips from old domestic appliances to keep their equipment going. That's utter desperation.
Ukraine's Resolve may be enough to keep the Russians from conquering all of Ukraine but it likely won't be enough to prevent Putin from taking 1/4 or 1/3 of their territory.
Wasn't the goal of the "special military operation" to get rid of the "Nazis" in the whole of Ukraine? Putin got away with taking Crimea and he should have left it at that. He didn't and there is no way the international community is going to stand for him stealing part of Ukraine.
There's strength in numbers and Russia has the numbers in manpower and military hardware.
And still they have achieved very little at massive costs
It's totally tragic what is happening to Ukraine but short of direct intervention by NATO, I don't see a way for them to win this war via military force.
All they need to do is kick out Russian forces and I wouldn't be surprised if the first objective of Ukraine is going to be to regain Crimea.
Btw, your admiration for the war criminal Putin is duly noted
-
In a conflict like this, there is no uncertainty about anything, but, according to independent European media. recently Russia has reduced the number of missiles fired at Ukraine.
I have no idea what Russia's missile inventory is but remain skeptical that Russia is "running out of missiles". Every few weeks they unleash a barrage of missiles against Ukraine.
Russia Hits Ukraine with Biggest Missile Strike in Weeks
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/russia-hits-ukraine-with-biggest-missile-strike-in-weeks/6997984.html
Perhaps a better word to use is "had more armor"
I have no idea how many tanks Russia has lost in Ukraine so far but if they started with over 12,000 and can produce up to 1,500 per year, I'm gonna guess they still have over 10,000 tanks.
Ukraine is getting new tanks from western countries but not in the quantities that they've asked for.
Of course they do.... they didn't expect to be invaded by Russia and are in need of help.
That's an uncharacteristically naive comment from you.
President Zelensky admitted that he downplayed the likelihood that Russia would invade in 2022 because he didn't want Ukrainians to flee the country en masse before the invasion.
Ukraine has spent the last 9 years preparing for this war. NATO began arming and training Ukrainian forces some time after Putin annexed Crimea.
2015 - U.S. Army Begins Training Ukrainian Soldiers
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/25/417511636/u-s-army-begins-training-ukrainian-soldiers
There has been a civil war in eastern Ukraine since 2014.
War in Donbas (2014–2022)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022)
President Zelensky's advisor in 2019 predicted that they would need to win a war against Russia in order to join NATO.
Former Ukrainian presidential advisor perfectly predicted Russian invasion in 2019
https://intellinews.com/former-ukrainian-presidential-advisor-perfectly-predicted-russian-invasion-in-2019-238183/
In short, Ukraine was preparing for war long before February 2022.
Again, who died and made you an expert?
I'm no expert. I've just been following the events in Ukraine since around 2017-2018.
Everything I've posted on this topic can be found in articles on the web. This is open-source information.
An obstacle? They are using computer chips from old domestic appliances to keep their equipment going. That's utter desperation.
At the end of the day, Russia is fighting one of the poorest countries in Europe, not the US or a NATO country.
In the big picture, I don't expect Russia to be able to take all of Ukraine. They're not performing well enough to sweep across the entirety of Ukraine.
I'm only saying that the idea that Ukraine can overwhelm and militarily defeat the world's third largest military is unlikely.
But of course, stranger things have happened. For example, the Vietnamese defeated the French, the US, and China in a span of 30 years. So I'm not writing off Ukraine entirely.
"Unlikely" doesn't mean it's impossible.
Wasn't the goal of the "special military operation" to get rid of the "Nazis" in the whole of Ukraine? Putin got away with taking Crimea and he should have left it at that. He didn't and there is no way the international community is going to stand for him stealing part of Ukraine.
I can't speak for Putin's goals in Ukraine nor can I explain why the US has cared so much about Ukraine since the early-00s.
From my POV, Ukraine looks like a pawn in a proxy-war between the West and Russia.
If the international community isn't going to put NATO boots on the ground to stop Putin, he likely won't be stopped.
If the choice is between starting WW3 in defense of Ukraine's sovereignty, or letting Putin keep 20% of Ukraine's territory, sign me up for the latter. I just don't think the Crimea is worth risking nuclear war over...
Btw, your admiration for the war criminal Putin is duly noted
What have I said that indicates I admire Putin? Please enlighten me.
-
I knew when I wrote it that it would go right over your head..... and it did! :D
The point I was making is a simple one. A nearly 60 80 year old tank is pretty worthless compared to modern day weapon systems, just like swords and bow and arrows stopped being useful when they started to use guns and cannons.
A T-34 tank belongs in a museum and not on a modern battleground. Get it now, or am I still going too fast for you?
A T-34 tank is still a formidable weapon. Ask the Germans when the Russians crushed them in WWII. The primary battle tank of the Red Army into the 1950s. Your stupid comparison to medieval weapons just highlights your profound ignorance and bias.
-
The leftists have conflicting rationales for this endless war. On the one hand, they argue Russia is a paper tiger with poor weapons and troops. On the other hand, they argue that if Russia is not confronted in Ukraine they will overrun "Europe" like Hitler. How exactly are they going to accomplish that if they can't even take a few pro-Russian regions of Ukraine? The bottom line here is that there is no real strategy or objective except a long war. Russia is a proxy for Trump to the leftists. The leftists desperately tried to tie the two together for years. The right wingers want to control the money and refight the Cold War by tying Russia down in an endless conflict.
-
The leftists have conflicting rationales for this endless war. On the one hand, they argue Russia is a paper tiger with poor weapons and troops. On the other hand, they argue that if Russia is not confronted in Ukraine they will overrun "Europe" like Hitler. How exactly are they going to accomplish that if they can't even take a few pro-Russian regions of Ukraine? The bottom line here is that there is no real strategy or objective except a long war. Russia is a proxy for Trump to the leftists. The leftists desperately tried to tie the two together for years. The right wingers want to control the money and refight the Cold War by tying Russia down in an endless conflict.
I agree that it's a huge contradiction but I hear that rhetoric from some Republican politicians too.
One minute, Russia is a paper tiger and near defeat in Ukraine. The next minute, we're being told if we don't stop Russia in Ukraine, they'll invade Poland. Both things can't be true at the same time.
I agree that the 2016 election and the Trump-Russia stuff has made Democrats more paranoid about Russia than they were prior to 2016. On the flip side, I think Republicans seem paranoid about China. Good policies don't come from paranoia and hysteria.
-
A T-34 tank is still a formidable weapon. Ask the Germans when the Russians crushed them in WWII. The primary battle tank of the Red Army into the 1950s. Your stupid comparison to medieval weapons just highlights your profound ignorance and bias.
A T-34 tank is still a formidable weapon.
Try putting it against a Leopard 2 or M1A2 Abrams and you will find out very quickly how "formidable" it really is.....
Your stupid comparison to medieval weapons just highlights your profound ignorance and bias.
Oh well, I tried to explain it to you, but it seems you still haven't understood.
-
I agree that it's a huge contradiction but I hear that rhetoric from some Republican politicians too.
One minute, Russia is a paper tiger and near defeat in Ukraine. The next minute, we're being told if we don't stop Russia in Ukraine, they'll invade Poland. Both things can't be true at the same time.
I agree that the 2016 election and the Trump-Russia stuff has made Democrats more paranoid about Russia than they were prior to 2016. On the flip side, I think Republicans seem paranoid about China. Good policies don't come from paranoia and hysteria.
NY Times headline today:
"U.S. Arms Production Can’t Keep Up as Ukraine War Drains Supply"
-
NY Times headline today:
"U.S. Arms Production Can’t Keep Up as Ukraine War Drains Supply"
American suppliers are selling goods (at a big profit, of course) and can't keep up with demand. What exactly are you whining about, this time?
-
NY Times headline today:
"U.S. Arms Production Can’t Keep Up as Ukraine War Drains Supply"
And that is why a war of attrition favors Russia. Ukraine may never get enough weapons to overwhelm Russia militarily.
-
And that is why a war of attrition favors Russia. Ukraine may never get enough weapons to overwhelm Russia militarily.
You gotta love those armchair generals!
So far, Ukraine has been doing a pretty good job at stopping the invasion dead in it's tracks with limited means.
With the first Leopard 2 tanks and jets having been delivered, nobody really knows what's going to happen.
-
You gotta love those armchair generals!
So far, Ukraine has been doing a pretty good job at stopping the invasion dead in it's tracks with limited means.
With the first Leopard 2 tanks and jets having been delivered, nobody really knows what's going to happen.
Ukraine didn’t have zero tanks and fighter jets at the start of this war. What happened to their two thousand tanks and hundreds of fighter jets Ukraine had a year ago? I think we can guess what happened to that equipment.
First we instigated a war that Ukraine can’t win and now we’re prolonging the war. Which at the end of the day, Ukraine benefits from the least of all parties involved.
-
Ukraine didn’t have zero tanks and fighter jets at the start of this war. What happened to their two thousand tanks and hundreds of fighter jets Ukraine had a year ago? I think we can guess what happened to that equipment.
First we instigated a war that Ukraine can’t win and now we’re prolonging the war. Which at the end of the day, Ukraine benefits from the least of all parties involved.
What happened to their two thousand tanks and hundreds of fighter jets Ukraine had a year ago?
How do you know what they had a year ago and what they have left now?
First we instigated a war that Ukraine can’t win and now we’re prolonging the war.
Who are "we"?
-
I agree that it's a huge contradiction but I hear that rhetoric from some Republican politicians too.
One minute, Russia is a paper tiger and near defeat in Ukraine. The next minute, we're being told if we don't stop Russia in Ukraine, they'll invade Poland. Both things can't be true at the same time.
I agree that the 2016 election and the Trump-Russia stuff has made Democrats more paranoid about Russia than they were prior to 2016. On the flip side, I think Republicans seem paranoid about China. Good policies don't come from paranoia and hysteria.
One minute, Russia is a paper tiger and near defeat in Ukraine. The next minute, we're being told if we don't stop Russia in Ukraine, they'll invade Poland. Both things can't be true at the same time.
I don't think Russia is near defeat in Ukraine, but they are struggling, that's for sure. And even if Russia isn't as powerful as they once were, there is still a need to stop Putin, as it is more than possible that he will see a lack of response from the West as an invitation to attack other countries as well. Maybe not straight away, but he may well increase weapon production to ensure he's much stronger when he invades the next country.
-
What happened to their two thousand tanks and hundreds of fighter jets Ukraine had a year ago?
How do you know what they had a year ago and what they have left now?
(https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/INTERACTIVE-Ukraine-Russia-head-to-head.png?w=770&resize=770%2C770)
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/1/25/infographic-military-capabilities-of-russia-and-ukraine-interactive
As the graphic above shows, we know what both countries started with in February 2022. The fact that Ukraine desperately needs tanks and fighter jets suggests that they’ve lost most of their tanks and fighter jets already.
First we instigated a war that Ukraine can’t win and now we’re prolonging the war.
Who are "we"?
The US government. Several US Presidents going back to the Bush II administration.
Against the advice of our diplomats and allies, we advocated for Ukraine to join NATO, helped them overthrow their democratically elected President in 2014, and advised them against making peace with their separatists in eastern Ukraine prior to February 2022.
Ukraine has been caught in the middle of a proxy-war between the West and Russia for the past decade or so.
My only hope is that this thing doesn’t spiral out of control and escalate to World War 3.
-
American suppliers are selling goods (at a big profit, of course) and can't keep up with demand. What exactly are you whining about, this time?
What an idiotic statement even considering the source. While the US is mired down supplying Ukraine in an endless war (while "Europe" does nothing) and running out of ammo, the enemies of the US are being emboldened. Iran is striking the US in Syria. China is pondering an attack on Taiwan. They have been emboldened by weakness and incompetence. The US is at its weakest point in modern history. Russia and China are now allies. Saudi Arabia and Iran are now allies. It's now or never for China and Iran to strike. A time of opportunity due to Ukraine Joe and his cast of clowns.
-
What an idiotic statement even considering the source. While the US is mired down supplying Ukraine in an endless war (while "Europe" does nothing) and running out of ammo, the enemies of the US are being emboldened. Iran is striking the US in Syria. China is pondering an attack on Taiwan. They have been emboldened by weakness and incompetence. The US is at its weakest point in modern history. Russia and China are now allies. Saudi Arabia and Iran are now allies. It's now or never for China and Iran to strike. A time of opportunity due to Ukraine Joe and his cast of clowns.
More right wing fearmongering...
-
What an idiotic statement even considering the source. While the US is mired down supplying Ukraine in an endless war (while "Europe" does nothing) and running out of ammo, the enemies of the US are being emboldened. Iran is striking the US in Syria. China is pondering an attack on Taiwan. They have been emboldened by weakness and incompetence. The US is at its weakest point in modern history. Russia and China are now allies. Saudi Arabia and Iran are now allies. It's now or never for China and Iran to strike. A time of opportunity due to Ukraine Joe and his cast of clowns.
It’s Syrians and Iraqis attacking our troops in Syria and Iraq. The insurgents or militias may be linked to Iran but it’s misleading to portray it as Iran ordering the attacks.
The reality is, there are lots of local militias in Syria and Iraq that want our troops out of their country. Trump was right to attempt to withdraw our troops from Syria but his own party and the pentagon blocked him…
-
It’s Syrians and Iraqis attacking our troops in Syria and Iraq. The insurgents or militias may be linked to Iran but it’s misleading to portray it as Iran ordering the attacks.
The reality is, there are lots of local militias in Syria and Iraq that want our troops out of their country. Trump was right to attempt to withdraw our troops from Syria but his own party and the pentagon blocked him…
Extreme right wing nuts will always exaggerate. When 10 South Americans cross the bother, they call it an invasion. For MAGA Grumpy the sky will always fall tomorrow and it will be the Democrats fault. :D
-
Extreme right wing nuts will always exaggerate. When 10 South Americans cross the bother, they call it an invasion. For MAGA Grumpy the sky will always fall tomorrow and it will be the Democrats fault. :D
Did you mean 10 million because that is a closer number to the actual situation? Whose fault is it since Ukraine Joe refuses to enforce the law and allows it to happen?
-
Did you mean 10 million because that is a closer number to the actual situation? Whose fault is it since Ukraine Joe refuses to enforce the law and allows it to happen?
Thank you for proving my point.
No matter how many people cross the border, it's never an "invasion"!
-
Thank you for proving my point.
No matter how many people cross the border, it's never an "invasion"!
I guess the Russians are not invading Ukraine then by your bizarre interpretation. They are only immigrating in tanks seeking a better life etc. HA HA HA. Who knew you were a Putin propagandist?
-
I guess the Russians are not invading Ukraine then by your bizarre interpretation. They are only immigrating in tanks seeking a better life etc. HA HA HA. Who knew you were a Putin propagandist?
Stop behaving like an idiot.
Are the people crossing the Southern border doing so with tanks and all sorts of weapon systems?
-
Stop behaving like an idiot.
Are the people crossing the Southern border doing so with tanks and all sorts of weapon systems?
So if the Ukranians offered no resistance and simply let the Russians cross their border (and even escorted them to their desired location) it would not be an invasion? That is what Ukraine Joe has done in America. He has disregarded immigration laws and opened our borders to millions of unknown people flooding through. More Americans have died from the drugs coming across the open southern border than have died in any war in which America was ever involved. Over 100K just last year. More people than are dying in Ukraine.
-
Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste and Bicker
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/25/world/europe/volunteers-us-ukraine-lies.html
-
It’s Syrians and Iraqis attacking our troops in Syria and Iraq. The insurgents or militias may be linked to Iran but it’s misleading to portray it as Iran ordering the attacks.
The reality is, there are lots of local militias in Syria and Iraq that want our troops out of their country. Trump was right to attempt to withdraw our troops from Syria but his own party and the pentagon blocked him…
Tell it to Old Joe since he is striking Iran-linked targets in response. The US has no business or purpose having a military presence there. It only serves as a potential target for terrorists. They could perform the same functions from other, safer locations in the region. This is mostly a corrupt politician driven result. It takes an enormous expenditure of money to maintain a base in a hostile region. That money goes to companies that contribute to the campaigns of those who approve it. A vicious cycle. Reagan learned this lesson in Lebanon. After the Marines were killed there, he pulled out. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
-
Tell it to Old Joe since he is striking Iran-linked targets in response. The US has no business or purpose having a military presence there. It only serves as a potential target for terrorists. They could perform the same functions from other, safer locations in the region. This is mostly a corrupt politician driven result. It takes an enormous expenditure of money to maintain a base in a hostile region. That money goes to companies that contribute to the campaigns of those who approve it. A vicious cycle. Reagan learned this lesson in Lebanon. After the Marines were killed there, he pulled out. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
I agree. It's not clear what our military objectives are in Syria. Yes, ISIS still exists there but they're not nearly as strong as they were a decade ago.
If the real objective is to counter Iran's influence in Syria, President Biden needs to clarify that so Americans understand why he's putting US forces in harms way.
I was just noting that it's a dangerous neighborhood where the locals don't like our troops being there regardless of our relations with Iran.
-
I agree. It's not clear what our military objectives are in Syria. Yes, ISIS still exists there but they're not nearly as strong as they were a decade ago.
If the real objective is to counter Iran's influence in Syria, President Biden needs to clarify that so Americans understand why he's putting US forces in harms way.
I was just noting that it's a dangerous neighborhood where the locals don't like our troops being there regardless of our relations with Iran.
Trump wanted to pull out of Syria but was thwarted by the corrupt politicians who went into hysterics. Lindsey Graham chief among them. You would think that the US would insist that other countries that are more directly impacted by these conflicts would pay most of the cost, but the politicians actually want the US to pay for these undertakings. That allows them to control the money. So "Europe" is off the hook for Ukraine even though the narrative is protecting "Europe" from future Russia aggression. A fairy tale packaged as an emotional appeal to the American public the same way fighting Communism and weapons of mass destruction were used to justify prior wars.
-
Why aren't the leftists celebrating the recent leaker of classified documents as a hero? Like Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.
-
Why aren't the leftists celebrating the recent leaker of classified documents as a hero? Like Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.
Seems like some rightwingers from Tucker Carlson to Marjorie Taylor Greene are defending the leaker. No one on the Left appears to be defending the leaker at this time.
The leaks paint a very dire picture of the current situation for the Ukrainian military. The Pentagon both privately and publicly is more pessimistic about Ukraine's chances of successfully defeating Russia militarily than the White House and the news media are.
-
Seems like some rightwingers from Tucker Carlson to Marjorie Taylor Greene are defending the leaker. No one on the Left appears to be defending the leaker at this time.
The leaks paint a very dire picture of the current situation for the Ukrainian military. The Pentagon both privately and publicly is more pessimistic about Ukraine's chances of successfully defeating Russia militarily than the White House and the news media are.
Yes, the media is glossing over the apparent content of the leaked material. Ukraine is FUBAR with no end in sight. America is carrying the bulk of the cost while "Europe" is turning to China and checking out in light of Old Joe's bungling. Isn't a war more important than how some kid gained access to the documents due to the incompetence of Old Joe's clown show? Not to the leftist media. I agree that the leak should be investigated but the lies and futility of the ongoing war are the story.
-
It helps if one envisions Kramer as being Putin contemplating the impeding invasion of Ukraine.
Like Putin, Kramer was never able to take Ukraine.
Ukraine is Not Weak!
Note: The actor who played the Ukrainian, Wayne Grace, died last August at the age of 82. But not before learning that he had become something of the image of Ukrainian resistance.
-
So if the Ukranians offered no resistance and simply let the Russians cross their border (and even escorted them to their desired location) it would not be an invasion? That is what Ukraine Joe has done in America. He has disregarded immigration laws and opened our borders to millions of unknown people flooding through. More Americans have died from the drugs coming across the open southern border than have died in any war in which America was ever involved. Over 100K just last year. More people than are dying in Ukraine.
Not true at all. There is no "open border". Drugs are being seized in record numbers and deportations are up. That means there is no open border.
Criminal Donald left President Biden with a broken border and a total disaster.
Yes, There’s a Crisis on the Border. And It’s Trump’s Fault.
April 5, 2019
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/05/border-crisis-donald-trump-226573/
Trump administration struggles to confront fentanyl crisis
May 22, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/fentanyl-epidemic-trump-administration/
Opioid Crisis: Critics Say Trump Fumbled Response To Another Deadly Epidemic
October 29, 2020
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/29/927859091/opioid-crisis-critics-say-trump-fumbled-response-to-another-deadly-epidemic
-
Not true at all. There is no "open border". Drugs are being seized in record numbers and deportations are up. That means there is no open border.
Criminal Donald left President Biden with a broken border and a total disaster.
LOL. You must be the ONLY person in the entire US who believes this falsehood. You sound more and more like Baghdad Bob who proclaimed Iraqi victories on the battlefield while the US tanks rolled over the country. You lose any credibility when you engage in such falsehoods and propaganda. You think because more drugs are being seized this somehow is indictive of a closed border? Maybe it just means more drugs are crossing the border. If there was any doubt, there were a record number of drug overdoses in the US under Biden. Almost all of which came across the border. The Biden administration's own numbers confirm that a record number of illegals have flooded across the border in his term. Millions. I do agree that this is not a policy failure by Biden as characterized by Fox News. Rather, this is a policy success from his perspective. Biden and the radical Dems want an open border. These are future Dem voters in AZ, Texas, and other border states. The results are already apparent in many of those states. An open border is the policy.
-
LOL. You must be the ONLY person in the entire US who believes this falsehood. You sound more and more like Baghdad Bob who proclaimed Iraqi victories on the battlefield while the US tanks rolled over the country. You lose any credibility when you engage in such falsehoods and propaganda. You think because more drugs are being seized this somehow is indictive of a closed border? Maybe it just means more drugs are crossing the border. If there was any doubt, there were a record number of drug overdoses in the US under Biden. Almost all of which came across the border. The Biden administration's own numbers confirm that a record number of illegals have flooded across the border in his term. Millions. I do agree that this is not a policy failure by Biden as characterized by Fox News. Rather, this is a policy success from his perspective. Biden and the radical Dems want an open border. These are future Dem voters in AZ, Texas, and other border states. The results are already apparent in many of those states. An open border is the policy.
Criminal Donald said he would "end all illegal immigration". He lied. He left a mess for Biden.
Criminal Donald said he would "stop all illegal drugs coming in to America". He lied. He left a mess for Biden.
Criminal Donald said he "would build a wall and have Mexico pay for it". He lied. That never happened.
So, Criminal Donald left a disaster for Biden to deal with illegal immigration and fentanyl coming into the United States and right wingers pathetically want to blame Biden for Criminal Donald's 4 years of failure.
If there was an "open border" as you falsely claim, no drugs would be siezed and there would be no deportations. The fact is, drugs are being seized and deportations are up which debunks the fake "open border" falsehood.
Why didn't Criminal Donald stop illegal drugs and immigrants like he said he would? A total failure. He left a mess for Biden as he did with everything else including the economy and covid.
Overdose deaths hit a historic high in 2020. Frustrated experts say these strategies could save lives
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/overdose-deaths-hit-a-historic-high-in-2020-frustrated-experts-say-these-strategies-could-save-lives
Driven by fentanyl, rates of fatal teen overdoses doubled in 2020
https://www.statnews.com/2022/04/12/driven-by-fentanyl-rates-of-fatal-teen-overdoses-doubled-in-2020/
Trump’s Border Policies Let More Immigrants Sneak In
https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-border-policies-let-more-immigrants-sneak
-
Criminal Donald said he would "end all illegal immigration". He lied. He left a mess for Biden.
Criminal Donald said he would "stop all illegal drugs coming in to America". He lied. He left a mess for Biden.
Criminal Donald said he "would build a wall and have Mexico pay for it". He lied. That never happened.
So, Criminal Donald left a disaster for Biden to deal with illegal immigration and fentanyl coming into the United States and right wingers pathetically want to blame Biden for Criminal Donald's 4 years of failure.
If there was an "open border" as you falsely claim, no drugs would be siezed and there would be no deportations. The fact is, drugs are being seized and deportations are up which debunks the fake "open border" falsehood.
Why didn't Criminal Donald stop illegal drugs and immigrants like he said he would? A total failure. He left a mess for Biden as he did with everything else including the economy and covid.
Overdose deaths hit a historic high in 2020. Frustrated experts say these strategies could save lives
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/overdose-deaths-hit-a-historic-high-in-2020-frustrated-experts-say-these-strategies-could-save-lives
Driven by fentanyl, rates of fatal teen overdoses doubled in 2020
https://www.statnews.com/2022/04/12/driven-by-fentanyl-rates-of-fatal-teen-overdoses-doubled-in-2020/
Trump’s Border Policies Let More Immigrants Sneak In
https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-border-policies-let-more-immigrants-sneak
President Biden entered office in 2021 with a border crisis and fentanyl disaster that Donald Trump left for him to deal with.
In 2020 under Trump, overdoses were at historic highs and illegal immigrants were pouring in. That's the failure of Donald Trump who failed to secure the southern border after he boasted he would "stop drugs and immigrants from coming in".
So, President Biden inherited a full blown border and fentanyl crisis from Donald Trump. Right wingers pathetically call it a "Biden border crisis". Sorry, that's "Trump's border crisis" that he caused and left for Biden deal with.
When you have a full blown disaster on your hands, it takes awhile to get it under control.
But right wingers want to pretend under Criminal Donald no drugs were pouring in, no illegal immigrants were coming in, and no historic high overdoses were occurring.
All the right does is attempt to rewrite history for their criminal orange cult leader so they can blame President Biden instead. It's truly pathetic. The majority of Americans have tuned out the bogus right wing propaganda.
-
President Biden entered office in 2021 with a border crisis and fentanyl disaster that Donald Trump left for him to deal with.
In 2020 under Trump, overdoses were at historic highs and illegal immigrants were pouring in. That's the failure of Donald Trump who failed to secure the southern border after he boasted he would "stop drugs and immigrants from coming in".
So, President Biden inherited a full blown border and fentanyl crisis from Donald Trump. Right wingers pathetically call it a "Biden border crisis". Sorry, that's "Trump's border crisis" that he caused and left for Biden deal with.
When you have a full blown disaster on your hands, it takes awhile to get it under control.
But right wingers want to pretend under Criminal Donald no drugs were pouring in, no illegal immigrants were coming in, and no historic high overdoses were occurring.
All the right does is attempt to rewrite history for their criminal orange cult leader so they can blame President Biden instead. It's truly pathetic. The majority of Americans have tuned out the bogus right wing propaganda.
This had nothing to do with Trump. He is not in office. Ukraine Joe has been the president for over two years. According to Ukraine Joe's own administration, there has been a record flood of illegal crossings of the border since he became president. Nothing comparable in American history. He owns this disaster. An open border is his policy. A record number of drug deaths have occurred while Old Joe has been president due to his open border policy. Those drugs are coming across the open border. Those are demonstrable facts as supported by the data of the Biden administration. Even if the problem was bad under Trump (it wasn't), it is an absolute fact that it has gotten much worse under the incompetence and open border policies of Old Joe.
-
This had nothing to do with Trump. He is not in office. Ukraine Joe has been the president for over two years. According to Ukraine Joe's own administration, there has been a record flood of illegal crossings of the border since he became president. Nothing comparable in American history. He owns this disaster. An open border is his policy. A record number of drug deaths have occurred while Old Joe has been president due to his open border policy. Those drugs are coming across the open border. Those are demonstrable facts as supported by the data of the Biden administration. Even if the problem was bad under Trump (it wasn't), it is an absolute fact that it has gotten much worse under the incompetence and open border policies of Old Joe.
"This had nothing to do with Trump. He is not in office"...you say. :D :D :D
It has EVERYTHING to do with Trump. For 4 years, Trump created this border and fentanyl disaster that he handed off to Biden. Trump was President in 2019 and 2020 when this disaster was happening. Trump owns this disaster because HE created it.
Historic fentanyl deaths, illegal drugs and immigrants were pouring in over the border on Trump's watch. It was an absolute disaster.
Biden has only been in office for a little over two years and a border disaster like this doesn't get fixed overnight. Biden also had to fix Trump's economic and covid disaster that Trump handed to him as well. So, multiple disasters Trump handed Biden when he took over in January 2021.
The fact is, the southern border was never secured under Donald Trump with all these illegal immigrants and drugs pouring in. But the right wing media and politicians want to lie, falsely accusing President Biden of an "open border" when he is trying to fix the full blown Trump border disaster that was already happening when Biden took over.
Donald Trump boasted that he would "end all illegal immigration" and "illegal drugs" coming in to the United States. Well, you can read below from documented government statistics that wasn't the case. Trump was a miserable failure and created this disaster for President Biden to deal with.
Illegal drugs and illegal immigration was not "ended" under Trump. Illegal immigrants were coming in and we had historic overdose deaths from illegal drugs. But right wingers want to pathetically pretend that never happened on Trump's watch and want to blame President Biden instead. What a poor attempt at trying erase history, but that's why documented government statistics exist to debunk the right wing propaganda.
On Trump's watch in 2020, a few months BEFORE Biden took office, we had historic fentanyl overdose deaths along with illegal immigrants sneaking in. That's not Biden's fault because he wasn't even in office yet. That's Trump's fault and Trump's failure. He owns it because it was happening on his watch and he gave this disaster to Biden. So yes, this has everything to do with Trump. Own it.
Republicans need to accept responsibility for Trump's failures of his border disaster that he gave to President Biden, instead of falsely attacking Biden for trying to fix the mess he was handed from Trump.
Below are Trump's 4 years of failed disastrous border and immigration policies that President Biden inherited:
Yes, There’s a Crisis on the Border. And It’s Trump’s Fault.
April 5, 2019
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/05/border-crisis-donald-trump-226573/
Trump administration struggles to confront fentanyl crisis
May 22, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/fentanyl-epidemic-trump-administration/
Opioid Crisis: Critics Say Trump Fumbled Response To Another Deadly Epidemic
October 29, 2020
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/29/927859091/opioid-crisis-critics-say-trump-fumbled-response-to-another-deadly-epidemic
Modify message
Overdose deaths hit a historic high in 2020. Frustrated experts say these strategies could save lives
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/overdose-deaths-hit-a-historic-high-in-2020-frustrated-experts-say-these-strategies-could-save-lives
Driven by fentanyl, rates of fatal teen overdoses doubled in 2020
https://www.statnews.com/2022/04/12/driven-by-fentanyl-rates-of-fatal-teen-overdoses-doubled-in-2020/
Trump’s Border Policies Let More Immigrants Sneak In
https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-border-policies-let-more-immigrants-sneak
-
According to the leftist Wash Post, the recent leaked information suggests that there is no end in sight for the war in Ukraine. All wars go through three stages. First, initial enthusiasm based upon some narrative the government has conjured up to justify the war. Second, skepticism because the avowed objectives of the war are not being accomplished. Lastly, dissent when it becomes clear that the narrative was a lie and the costs of the war become burdensome. We are entering the second stage of this scenario as the war goes on and on with no end in sight or even any articulate way for it to end except for Russia to surrender. Ukraine Joe has put the US and world in a very vulnerable position. If China decides to exploit this situation, then we are facing either WWIII or total economic collapse.
-
Per CNN:
“[T]he Russian ground force has been degenerated somewhat by this conflict, although it is bigger today than it was at the beginning of the conflict,” Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of US European Command, told the House Armed Services Committee.
“The Air Force has lost very little, they’ve lost 80 planes. They have another 1,000 fighters and fighter bombers,” he said. “The Navy has lost one ship.”
-
Per CNN:
“[T]he Russian ground force has been degenerated somewhat by this conflict, although it is bigger today than it was at the beginning of the conflict,” Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of US European Command, told the House Armed Services Committee.
“The Air Force has lost very little, they’ve lost 80 planes. They have another 1,000 fighters and fighter bombers,” he said. “The Navy has lost one ship.”
Fewer and fewer people are buying into the narrative that Ukraine can win this war.
Russia may ultimately be unable to takeover all of Ukraine but Ukraine may ultimately be unable to kick the Russians out.
So a stalemate remains the most plausible outcome for the near future.
-
Fewer and fewer people are buying into the narrative that Ukraine can win this war.
Russia may ultimately be unable to takeover all of Ukraine but Ukraine may ultimately be unable to kick the Russians out.
So a stalemate remains the most plausible outcome for the near future.
Totally unable to kick Russia out of all Ukraine? I would agree. So long as Russia doesn't give up.
Certain parts of Ukraine are going to be very tough.
Luhansk and Donetsk. As the Russians are driven back here, they get closer and closer to the border of Russia. It becomes easier and easier to get supplies up to the front as the Russians retreat.
Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimea? A very different story. Those regions require a long, exposed supply line back into Russia. The sort of offensive the Ukrainians had in the Kharkiv region last September, through Zaporizhzhia would be catastrophic. This "Russian Land Bridge" through Zaporizhzhia. It's hard to imagine a worst strategic setup in modern history. A long, fairly narrow corridor, much longer than it is wide, backed up a shallow sea, the Sea of Atoz, too shallow for ships to navigate, looks very vulerable. If the Ukrainians drive to that sea, western Zaporizhxhia, Kherson and Crimea would have to be kept supplied over the partly destroyed Crimea bridge. That won't work.
I can think of no example in military history, that such a narrow corridor, has to be maintained, for many months at a time, in order to a large section of land to be held.
Question: Can anyone name a similar example?
If Crimea falls, Russia may decide to carry on the war in Luhansk and Donetsk. Or they may decide to call it quits. That this fiasco has gone on long enough.
Whatever happens, Ukraine is not going to quit. In 1941, some Ukrainians fought against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. And even though occupied by enemies for year after year, were not suppressed until 1949. It took the Soviet Union longer to totally defeat Ukraine than it did for them to defeat Nazi Germany.
And as long as Ukraine doesn't quit, a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Finland, Poland and Germany is not going to happen. And American troops will stay out of the fight. Let's continue to support them.
-
Russia will give up the northern Donbas before they retreat from Crimea.
I don't think some here understand the strategic importance of Crimea to Russia's national security. If Russia loses their naval bases in Crimea they could lose access to the Black Sea. Which would severely hurt them militarily and economically.
-
Russia will give up the northern Donbas before they retreat from Crimea.
I don't think some here understand the strategic importance of Crimea to Russia's national security. If Russia loses their naval bases in Crimea they could lose access to the Black Sea. Which would severely hurt them militarily and economically.
Spot on. Crimea has always been a hot spot. Russia has already lost a war over Crimea once (1853 - 1856) which took them decades to recover from and that was before modern war ships and Russia's need for a harbor that not only gives them access to the Black Sea but the Mediterramean Sea and beyond as well.
It is very possible that Russia will negotiate a peace if they lose control of Crimea. In such an event they might even be willing to give up all other occupied land. Which, of course, is exactly the reason why Ukraine should focus on cutting off Russia's supply lines to the Crimea.
-
Fewer and fewer people are buying into the narrative that Ukraine can win this war.
Russia may ultimately be unable to takeover all of Ukraine but Ukraine may ultimately be unable to kick the Russians out.
So a stalemate remains the most plausible outcome for the near future.
I'm not sure Russia ever intended to take over all of Ukraine. There are disputed regions in Ukraine in which there is a high percentage of ethnic Russians who prefer Russian rule. The fighting has been limited mostly to those areas. The US media and government have exaggerated Russia's objectives to even suggest that they pose a danger to NATO countries. There is zero evidence that Russia has any intention to invade Poland, Finland or any other country. This narrative conflicts with the other narrative espoused that Russia ia a paper tiger incapable of even winning in regions of Ukraine. But we are supposed to believe that they are going to invade a NATO country etc? It's ridiculous.
-
Spot on. Crimea has always been a hot spot. Russia has already lost a war over Crimea once (1853 - 1856) which took them decades to recover from and that was before modern war ships and Russia's need for a harbor that not only gives them access to the Black Sea but the Mediterramean Sea and beyond as well.
It is very possible that Russia will negotiate a peace if they lose control of Crimea. In such an event they might even be willing to give up all other occupied land. Which, of course, is exactly the reason why Ukraine should focus on cutting off Russia's supply lines to the Crimea.
No matter what Ukraine says, they’re not going to take Crimea by force.
It could become a frozen conflict where Ukraine never officially acknowledges that Crimea is part of Russia, like Syria and the Golan Heights.
But realistically, their chances of taking Crimea by force are very low.
-
I'm not sure Russia ever intended to take over all of Ukraine. There are disputed regions in Ukraine in which there is a high percentage of ethnic Russians who prefer Russian rule. The fighting has been limited mostly to those areas. The US media and government have exaggerated Russia's objectives to even suggest that they pose a danger to NATO countries. There is zero evidence that Russia has any intention to invade Poland, Finland or any other country. This narrative conflicts with the other narrative espoused that Russia ia a paper tiger incapable of even winning in regions of Ukraine. But we are supposed to believe that they are going to invade a NATO country etc? It's ridiculous.
Yeah, I have similar thoughts. The fighting in the Donbas started in 2014. Russia has been backing the Ukrainian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Western Ukraine is more ethnically Polish and Hungarian while eastern Ukraine is more culturally Russian. So it makes sense that Russia is focusing on the east.
I do however think that briefly when the invasion started there was a failed attempt to capture or kill Zelensky. Once the run on Kyiv failed, the Russians pulled their forces back and have focused on eastern Ukraine.
-
Faux News is a joke always trying to protect indicted and twice impeached Criminal Donald.
Fox News caught editing out Trump’s brag that he would have let Putin “take over” parts of Ukraine
https://www.salon.com/2023/03/08/fox-news-caught-editing-out-trumps-brag-that-he-would-have-let-putin-take-over-parts-of-ukraine/
-
Faux News is a joke always trying to protect indicted and twice impeached Criminal Donald.
Fox News caught editing out Trump’s brag that he would have let Putin “take over” parts of Ukraine
https://www.salon.com/2023/03/08/fox-news-caught-editing-out-trumps-brag-that-he-would-have-let-putin-take-over-parts-of-ukraine/
LOL. Remember "minor incursion" Joe giving Russia the signal to invade through his weakness? What is Ukraine Joe's plan now? The disputed regions have been reduced to a moonscape. Hundreds of billions have already been spent. There is no end in sight. Tens of thousands are dead due to Old Joe's weakness. They will curse Biden's name in Ukraine for centuries.
"It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do."
-
According to various media sources, the recently leaked documents confirm that the US has military advisors in Ukraine. So another lie of the Biden administration ("no boots on the ground") regarding this war has been exposed. And that one is too familiar from the Vietnam era. When you enter a regional conflict such as this one in which it is not possible to impose a defeat on the enemy through military means, the strategic initiative is solely with your enemy. That was the situation in Vietnam. That was the situation in Afghanistan. And now it is the situation in Ukraine. The war will go on for as long as the Russians want it too. Maybe they call it quits next week or next month or ten years from now, but that decision is entirely in their hands. Ukraine Joe has made no effort to change that equation. In fact, the corrupt poltiical establishment want it to go on for as long as possible. They are both enriched and the Cold War hawks finally get their chance to fight Russia. It's like something out of Dr. Strangelove.
-
Another Trump foreign policy disaster that we had to live through. Donnie gave up our American bases to his buddy Putin.
US troops and their allies feel humiliated after abandoning their bases in Syria to be taken over by gleeful Russians
Oct 16, 2019
(https://i.insider.com/5da713cbcc4a0a280764cef5?width=1200&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Russian troops and Syrian forces swiftly took over at least three recently abandoned US camps in northern Syria this week.
Russian mercenaries splashed their good fortune over social media and took selfies in front of US equipment, while Russian reporters gave walking tours of the base.
US troops vacated following Donald Trump's October 6 decision to pull all US troops from a coalition with the Syrian Defense Forces.
"Humiliation doesn't begin to cover what the US forces are feeling right now," a military official with the anti-ISIS coalition said.
Russian troops and their Syrian allies Wednesday quickly moved to assert their new power in Syria after this week's humiliating retreat by US forces in the wake of an invasion by Turkey.
For US and coalition soldiers, the spectacle was made worse by Russian glee at taking over multiple US military bases which were hastily abandoned.
Here is a video from the pro-Kremlin ANNA news network, which appears to show the inside of a base in Manbij, with abandoned tents, drinks coolers, and books. A Russian flag has been drawn on a white board.
The roughly 1,000 US soldiers — along with hundreds of French, Danish and British allies — have been forced to abandon positions along Syria's shared border with Turkey.
At the same time, Turkish troops and their proxies are pressing into Syria in a controversial campaign to eliminate Kurdish separatists that had allied with the US against ISIS.
The Kurdish response was to invite Russia and the Syrian regime into the eastern third of the country which they had governed autonomously for nearly eight years.
"Humiliation doesn't begin to cover what the US forces are feeling right now," said a military official with the anti-ISIS coalition.
"First they were forced to tell the people they trained, equipped and fought alongside for five years that they were leaving them to their fate, only to see Russian and Syrian troops enter the area and take over their bases."
On Tuesday, at least three US-built outposts in the areas around Manbij, Kobani, and Ayn Issa were abandoned and almost immediately taken over.
They were occupied by Russian special forces and mercenaries who have been deployed in Syria for five years to protect the tattered regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
The response from Russian state media was immediate as Russian troops and journalists took selfies amid the abandoned US equipment and gave video tours of the now Russian controlled facilities.
This video is from the state-controlled RT news channel: https://twitter.com/i/status/1184313012171108353
"It appears the Americans fled in their armored vehicles," said the RT Arabic service correspondent as she filmed an outdoor gym and motor pool area.
The reporter described the base as equipped with everything except weapons, ammunition and armored vehicles, which she dryly noted the US took with them while leaving virtually everything else behind.
A NATO military official from the anti-ISIS coalition said that the footage was an instant and powerful win for Russian propaganda.
He said: "This footage will play on endless repeat, not just around Russian state media. The notion that 'Americans fled Syria leaving behind perfect military bases for the Russians' will also receive massive play around the Middle East as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin makes the case that he's now the real superpower in the region."
A Kurdish fighter with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an umbrella group formed with US support and training to fight ISIS, said that in the brief conversations he had with the departing US soldiers, he felt they were deeply upset by the situation.
Mazen, an SDF fighter from Kobani, told Insider: "Some had tears in their eyes, we don't blame these soldiers. They were our brothers who fought with us for five years against [ISIS]. We blame the dictator Trump and his gang [Turkish President Recep] Erdogan and Putin."
He asked for only his first name for be used out of concern for his safety.
He said that while the Kurdish military leadership remains wary of both the Syrian regime and its Russian allies, they had no choice.
"We did not want to kill the revolution in Rojava and return to the regime and its Russian mercenaries," he said.
"But we could not face the Turkish airplanes, tanks, and their rapist, murdering criminal army alone. Bashar is a dog but the Turks are wolves."
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-troops-humiliated-abandoned-bases-syria-russians-2019-10
-
No end in sight. Stalemate. Ukraine Joe's plan? No one knows. For as long as it takes. Even if it is 20 years as in Afghanistan. How did that "plan" work?
-
Donnie was always Putin's puppet. Donnie was a foreign policy disaster who made America weak.
Trump's betrayal of the Kurds gifted military intelligence to Russia
Nov 21, 2019
(https://i.insider.com/5a0728ac7101ad340b03d056?width=2000&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
When Trump ordered US troops to abandon the Kurds in Northern Syria, Turkish forces stormed the newly unprotected area.
Within days of the Americans abandoning their bases, "reporters" from the Russian defence ministry's TV channel began broadcasting from there.
This is an intelligence (and propaganda) gift to Russia.
Moscow will carefully examine the abandoned bases for communications infrastructure, construction materials and techniques, and battlefield medical equipment.
Each new piece of knowledge will improve their understanding of Western tactics, techniques and operations, helping to develop countermeasures for future conflicts.
In a single phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan last month, President Donald Trump undid years of US-led efforts against ISIS in just minutes.
Trump unexpectedly agreed to withdraw US forces from areas along Syria's border with Turkey. This presence had long irritated Ankara: from these areas, American and allied special operations forces for five years trained, fought alongside and protected militias affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party.
It has long fought for an autonomous Kurdish state in the region, leading Ankara, Washington and others to designate the party a terror group years ago.
But the Kurds were the best fighters to take on ISIS with western support. And so the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces did, with victory costing them dearly: 11,000 dead (versus six American losses).
Shortly after that October 6 phone call, US forces abandoned their Syrian bases. In turn, Turkish forces and pro-Turkey militias in Syria stormed the now-unprotected Kurdish-held areas. Evidence quickly emerged of ethnic cleansing and war crimes against Kurds.
Current and former US service personnel are "heartbroken" and furious at Trump's betrayal of Kurdish allies, now being massacred by Turkish troops and their proxies.
His decision has achieved that rarity in Washington these days: bipartisan condemnation, with leading Republicans calling the withdrawal "a bloodstain in the annals of American history" and "a grave strategic mistake".
The retreat from Kurdish areas left a ton of intel in the hands of the Russians
Yet, with one exception, little has been written on the longer-term (counter-)intelligence implications. Make no mistake: this is an intelligence (and propaganda) gift to the West's adversaries – especially Russia.
(https://i.insider.com/5dd6920779d75765a83bf594?width=1200&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Within days of Americans abandoning their bases, "reporters" from the Russian defence ministry's TV channel and other pro-Kremlin outlets were broadcasting from there.
What won't have been publicised are the careful facility inspections by Russian and other hostile intelligence officials, looking for insights into Western intelligence.
The Russian footage above shows plenty that Moscow and others will carefully examine and hope to learn from: communications infrastructure; construction materials and techniques, and battlefield medical equipment, for example. Each new piece of knowledge will improve their understanding of special forces tactics, techniques and operations, enabling the West's adversaries to develop potential countermeasures for future conflicts.
Kurds will now be targeted by Moscow and Iran for info
The greatest vulnerability comes from Kurds now forced to seek Syrian and Russian protection, exposing all fighters – but especially elite Kurdish counter-terror units – to pressure of one kind or another.
For five years, these units operated alongside US, UK and French special forces against ISIS, learning much along the way about western tactics, equipment, sources and methods.
Over time, Russian, Iranian, and Syrian intelligence officers will debrief selected Kurdish fighters, while also looking to recruit long-term agents who may be secretly activated when again working with western forces, for example.
Adversary intelligence services will also want to exploit all information on whatever Kurdish electronic devices they can access: messages, photos, contact lists, geo-location and other meta-data will gradually paint a wider "electronic picture" of joint western-Kurdish operations.
Russian access to regional communications networks and providers (either on its own or with Syrian, Iranian and/or Turkish cooperation) will speed up this forensic intelligence work that will last many months.
Moscow, Tehran and Damascus have had a year to prepare for this
Moscow, Tehran and Damascus have had a year to prepare for all this and more, after the Kurds secretly opened a back-channel with them, fearing a Turkish massacre if the US ever left Syria.
The Kurds already suspect Russia, Syria and Turkey of planning to divide Kurdish territory amongst themselves.
Some US officials have downplayed how much intelligence value Kurdish fighters could actually be, due to US operational security over time.
While there is some truth to this, it also reveals a persistent Western weakness: to misunderstand the mindset of authoritarian regimes; and the huge resources — time, people, money — that they are prepared to use to gain what to Western observers might only appear to be a slight advantage.
Authoritarian states do not do national security on the cheap. And US operational security has room for improvement.
Turkey is resurrecting ISIS by releasing their fighters from Kurdish prisons
Trump's betrayal of the Kurds will take decades to play out. An emboldened Turkey will eventually overreach; but for now it seems determined to revive ISIS by freeing Islamic State prisoners, making a mockery of the tens of thousands of people who have died either fighting these extremists or as their victims.
The Kurds are now facing genocide or, at the very least, mass forced displacement. Russia appears to be filling the vacuum left by US retreats worldwide.
But the most immediate impact of Trump's actions has already been on America's international standing as a reliable ally and on Washington's lost access to human intelligence from the region vital to US national security.
Trump's betrayal of the Kurds has been an intelligence gift to the West's adversaries – how big a one, we will soon find out.
https://www.insider.com/trump-betrayal-of-kurds-gave-intelligence-to-russia-2019-11
-
Donnie was always Putin's puppet. Donnie was a foreign policy disaster who made America weak.
This is fake propaganda (i.e. an extension of the fake "Russian collusion" conspiracy hoax), but even if it were true there was no invasion or war under Trump. What is preferrable? The current situation in which hundreds of thousands are dead and regions of Ukraine are a moonscape with no end in sight or even a plan to bring about an end or Trump saying nice things about Putin because he played to Putin's ego? Radicalized ideologues such as yourself believe that attacking Trump is more important than any other issue in the entire world. If it means war, crime, open borders, censorship, imprisoning dissenters etc. it is all good because the ends justify any and all means when it comes to Trump. The net result is the world spiraling into ruin under a man with dementia and his clown show of imcompetents.
-
Here's another gift that Donnie gave to Putin which allowed him to invade Ukraine. Donnie will always be known as Putin's puppet.
Trump administration pulls out of Open Skies treaty with Russia
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/527056-us-withdraws-from-open-skies-treaty-with-russia/
-
Even the Pope is now trying to intervene to stop Ukraine Joe's endless war. The US has undermined every peace effort thus far including a deal brokered by Turkey. It is not in Ukraine Joe's interest to end this war. His cronies are making billions.
-
Even the Pope is now trying to intervene to stop Ukraine Joe's endless war. The US has undermined every peace effort thus far including a deal brokered by Turkey. It is not in Ukraine Joe's interest to end this war. His cronies are making billions.
It's Putin's war.
-
The 4 year Trump disaster included a disastrous foreign policy that made America less safe. That's what happens when a compromised unstable lunatic is in charge doing whatever Putin wants him to do.
The Total Destruction of U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump
His last remaining objective is obtaining foreign help for his reelection.
(https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GettyImages-872780694.jpg?resize=1536,1024&quality=90)
The lack of any significant U.S. response to the revelation that Russia has offered money to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops shines yet another ugly spotlight on the foreign policy of U.S. President Donald Trump—or, more precisely, the utter lack of one. As the presidential election season heats up, Trump’s latest failure should remind American voters that his administration has failed on the most important global threats—not least the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. All these and other foreign-policy failures should be just as much at the center of the debate as the crush of domestic policy concerns.
Trump’s latest failure should remind American voters that his administration has failed on the most important global threats.
Many months bounties after the Russian first became known to the White House, and weeks after they became public, Trump still has taken no action and expressed no empathy for soldiers or their families, claiming that this issue, too, is just a hoax cooked up by his enemies. On this issue as on so many others, his foreign policy mainly consists of a series of marginally coherent tweets with no discernible objective or strategy. Indeed, after three and a half years in office, Trump has developed no foreign policy at all. What we do see are haphazard assertions, “maximum pressure” campaigns, boundless admiration for and obsequious pandering to authoritarian leaders, disparaging of democratic allies, and so-called trade deals that cost thousands of American jobs and lack any strategic objective.
As a result of Trump’s failures, the Middle East is further from peace and closer to the next Palestinian uprising than when he took office, the people of Cuba and Venezuela face a bitter future, the promise of African renewal is sidelined, and there is no real challenge to either Russia or China.
Trump’s approach to Iran is another painful and costly example. Over three years after the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal, Iran has more highly enriched uranium available for a nuclear weapon, more operating nuclear facilities, more sophisticated technology, and a shorter breakout time to build a nuclear weapon. Its malign behavior in the Middle East has not ceased, Americans remain detained by Tehran, and human rights in Iran have worsened. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Iran envoy Brian Hook advertise this as a campaign of “maximum pressure,” but their ultimate objective—which they insist is not regime change—remains a mystery.
A similar lack of clear objectives and coherent policies features in virtually every area of foreign policy and national security. On the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, what masquerades as Trump’s policy is nothing but a series of photo opportunities with dictator Kim Jong Un. Other than stating the need for “complete, verifiable denuclearization” by North Korea, there appears to be no strategy for even a single incremental step on the way to such a goal. As Trump has done with European allies on Iran, Washington has left allies in Seoul and Tokyo blindsided and out of the loop, dangerously exposed both to North Korea and to the erratic policies of the United States, and with no hope of any de-escalation of tensions with Pyongyang.
Years from now, we will hopefully discover the exact nature of Trump’s personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin beyond mere envy of power.
In the Middle East, the administration’s mysterious, so-called peace plan between the Israelis and Palestinians—developed by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner—was so secret that it never really made an appearance before being shrugged off. As the November election approaches, there is no discernible objective of Trump’s policies other than currying personal favor with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, more importantly, with Trump’s evangelical Christian base—while undermining the long-standing bipartisan nature of U.S. support for Israel. Even U.S. allies such as the United Arab Emirates and Jordan are now so opposed to Israel’s Trump-backed plan to annex parts of the West Bank that stability in the Middle East is further undermined.
Perhaps most damaging to U.S. strategic interests and global stability is Trump’s complete mishandling of Russia and China, where he has veered between mere transactional tactics and his desire for photo-ops with authoritarian strongmen. Years from now, we will hopefully discover the exact nature of Trump’s personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin beyond mere envy of power. Trump has already voiced his envy of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s status of president for life. And in both cases yet again, there appears to be no overarching objective, no strategy for getting there, no coherent policy process. There is no evidence, for example, of a desire to preserve arms control with Russia or to stop Russia’s (or any other country’s) persistent disinformation campaigns that are now looming as an ever-larger threat to the integrity of the U.S. election. And by scoffing at Russian bounties on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan, Trump underscores his continued stance of putting Russia above U.S. interests and American lives.
At the same time, the Trump administration has made no effort to find areas of cooperation with China, such as climate change, even as the United States challenges and confronts China on issues such as intellectual property theft, unfair trade practices, and control over the South China Sea.
What remains after all these failures is a clear effort by Trump and his allies to obtain Russian and Chinese help for his reelection.
What remains after all these failures is a clear effort by Trump and his allies to obtain Russian and Chinese help for his reelection. We should all remember Trump’s shocking plea for Russia to interfere in the U.S. election when he was still a candidate in 2016: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” This time around, we know from former National Security Advisor John Bolton that Trump, at the June 2019 G-20 summit in Japan, pleaded with Xi to help him win reelection. At the same summit, during his meeting with Putin, Trump laughed off Russian interference in U.S. elections. And this week, at a congressional hearing that followed a senior counterintelligence official’s warning that Russia, China, and Iran are actively trying to influence the November election, Attorney General William Barr hesitated to say that it was inappropriate for a presidential campaign to solicit or accept foreign assistance.
The only possible conclusion is that the objective in Trump’s relations with other countries is not national security but Trump’s security. Nothing else explains the vacuous and vain approach of a foreign policy without objectives, without strategy, without any indication that it protects and advances U.S. interests.
As the United States enters the final months of the presidential election campaign, Americans are understandably preoccupied with the coronavirus pandemic, issues of racial injustice, and their own challenges in a collapsed economy with a dismal outlook. But if the virus has taught us anything, it is that the fate of the United States is inseparable from the world’s. The United States’ recovery from the pandemic and the economic collapse is dependent on other countries for public health, for trade, and for peace and security. As November approaches, Trump’s disastrous lack of any coherent policy to advance U.S. interests and to keep Americans healthy, prosperous, and safe—as well as his still-accumulating string of failures—should be at the center of the country’s debate.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/31/trump-destruction-foreign-policy/
-
The 4 year Trump disaster included a disastrous foreign policy that made America less safe. That's what happens when a compromised unstable lunatic is in charge doing whatever Putin wants him to do.
LOL. Detached from reality. I guess I missed out on the Russian invasion of Ukraine during Trump's administration. Trump played Putin. "Minor incursion" Joe, however, green lighted the Russian invasion with his weakness and incompetence. China is next. They will not miss this opportunity to invade Taiwan with the US bogged down in a stalemate with no end in sight in Ukraine. No way China wants to deal with Trump or DeSantis. Ask the people of Ukraine who did a better job dealing with Putin. At least the ones who haven't been killed.
-
As bad as Trump was, Biden so far has a worse performance on foreign affairs.
There’s an acceleration of countries abandoning the US dollar in international trade.
North Korea is launching missiles again.
China’s President won’t talk to Biden.
The war in Ukraine isn’t going well for Ukraine.
Saudi Arabia and the US have the worst relations in decades
Some of those things aren’t Biden’s fault of course but he and his administration don’t seem to be handling all these various issues competently.
-
Let's not forget Criminal Donald helped Putin pave the way to invade Ukraine.
Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
-
Let's not forget Criminal Donald helped Putin pave the way to invade Ukraine.
Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
"Paved the way" LOL. I guess that means Old Joe is helpless to influence events. Maybe it is only a "minor incursion." No end in sight. Almost two years into this conflict and Ukraine Joe has yet to articulate, much less pursue, any means to bring it to an end. His handlers are getting rich and want it to go on and on and on like Afghanistan and Vietnam.
-
Criminal Donald has always been a Russian stooge and a puppet of Putin. This is the most anti American moment in history when Donnie sided with the enemy over our own intelligence.
Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit
16 July 2018
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812
-
So the new whistleblower confirms that Old Joe was on the payroll of Ukraine as VP. No wonder he is all in on this war for "as long as it takes" with no plan or limit on how to conduct it. That is effectively treason. They impeached Trump for just talking on the phone to Zelensky but Ukraine Joe has conspired for years with Ukraine for his own personal benefit including influencing his decision to enter a war. Hundreds of thousands are dead and homeless due to his corruption. Even under Obama, Ukraine Joe was an advocate for US military intervention in Ukraine. Only Obama's good judgment kept us out of that disaster. Why did Old Joe travel to Ukraine on the last days of the Obama administration? Maybe we will find out some day.
-
So the new whistleblower confirms that Old Joe was on the payroll of Ukraine as VP. No wonder he is all in on this war for "as long as it takes" with no plan or limit on how to conduct it. That is effectively treason. They impeached Trump for just talking on the phone to Zelensky but Ukraine Joe has conspired for years with Ukraine for his own personal benefit including influencing his decision to enter a war. Hundreds of thousands are dead and homeless due to his corruption. Even under Obama, Ukraine Joe was an advocate for US military intervention in Ukraine. Only Obama's good judgment kept us out of that disaster. Why did Old Joe travel to Ukraine on the last days of the Obama administration? Maybe we will find out some day.
Ukraine isn't a top US strategic interest. It's so strange how that country has been so prominently in the middle of US politics over the past decade.
-
Ukraine isn't a top US strategic interest. It's so strange how that country has been so prominently in the middle of US politics over the past decade.
Yes, Old Joe has taken more trips to Ukraine over the years than to most US states. It is curious that in the final days as VP that he flew around the world to Ukraine. He was literally on his way out of office but he to meet with the Ukranians? LOL. I doubt they ever pin anything on him because the investigators are leftist political cronies, but at best he and his family enriched themselves in unethical ways. At worst, he was paid to influence policy decisions at the highest levels. An impeachable crime.
-
Biden rallies allies in fight for Ukraine
President Joe Biden addressed the world on Tuesday from Warsaw, Poland, just days before the one-year mark of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, remarking that "Kyiv stands strong."
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/video/biden-rallies-allies-fight-ukraine-97380004
-
The Deep State is really turning up the heat on Biden, Inc. this week. Suddenly leak after leak on corruption of Biden, Inc. on the very week he announces he is running for reelection. The leftist bureaucrats are in a panic that Old Joe in not up to the task and Trump will win. That will mean cleaning house.
-
Criminal Donald tried to destroy NATO because that's what his puppet master Putin wanted. President Biden has united NATO and rallied all of our allies together. Once again, the United States is the strong beacon of light leading the world.
Biden rallies the West to not get tired of winning
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/21/biden-ukraine-russia-nato-democracy-00083812
-
Criminal Donald tried to destroy NATO because that's what his puppet master Putin wanted. President Biden has united NATO and rallied all of our allies together. Once again, the United States is the strong beacon of light leading the world.
Biden rallies the West to not get tired of winning
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/21/biden-ukraine-russia-nato-democracy-00083812
Another fake talking point. Trump did the most reasonable thing imaginable. He asked for the members of NATO to pay their agreed upon share. Many were not and have not done so, forcing the US to carry the burden. Imagine the US paying to defend "Europe" from Russia while "Europe" doesn't even pay the miniscule amounts they agreed upon. And, in fact, bought Russian oil and gas. It is completely insane. They must fall on the ground laughing at Ukraine Joe.
-
Nothing but failure under Criminal Donald who was a foreign policy disaster.
Trump's foreign policy report card is full of failing grades
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/23/trumps-foreign-policy-report-card-is-full-failing-grades/
-
Ukraine is already rolling back expectations for the so-called upcoming offensive. Stalemate for years with the US picking up the tab while "Europe" laughs. Ukraine Joe will be cursed by the people of Ukraine for centuries the same way they curse LBJ in Vietnam.
-
Thankfully we have President Biden to clean up the foreign policy mess left behind by Criminal Donald.
The Erratic State of U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/on-foreign-policy-trump-has-sown-confusion-and-upended-norms/
-
Trump 2024! The most recent poll numbers confirm that the Stasi-like campaign to stop him at all costs haven't worked. Ukraine Joe with the full support of the media, political establishment, and and DOJ can't stop Trump. Magnificent. No person in modern history could overcome these powerful forces to led in the polls. Fortunately, the weakness and incompetence of the Biden clown show are reflected in the polls. Democracy still exists. Results matter. Ideology and propaganda can't rule the day.
-
Trump 2024! The most recent poll numbers confirm that the Stasi-like campaign to stop him at all costs haven't worked. Ukraine Joe with the full support of the media, political establishment, and and DOJ can't stop Trump. Magnificent. No person in modern history could overcome these powerful forces to led in the polls. Fortunately, the weakness and incompetence of the Biden clown show are reflected in the polls. Democracy still exists. Results matter. Ideology and propaganda can't rule the day.
Democracy survives. No thanks to Trump. If Democracy is to survive, Trump must lose in November 2024. And he will lose. The people who defeated his candidates in November 2022 will see to that.
-
Spring is coming.
-
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we (you) have striven these many months. THe eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. . . .
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained (??), well equipped (?) and battle-hardened (?). He will fight savagely (true enough). . . .
. . .
Gook Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
* * * * * * * * * *
The determination of the Ukrainian people and troops I have full confidence in. Not so much in the will of the free people in the rest of the world in 2023, compared to 1944. The Allied victory is 1944-1945 was assured by the determination of the free people of the world, and good portion of the non free people of the world, in the Soviet Union. Even if Operations Overlord and Bagration both failed, Allied victory was inevitable because of this determination. This kind of determination is not present in the same degree outside of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States. And so I truly do hope that we have given the Ukrainians enough support and they do triumph in 2023. I believe they will.
-
The French dug in during the winter of 1939-1940. Indeed they spent all of the 1930's digging in. While Germany trained for offensive battle.
The Germans dug in during the winter of 1943-1944, all along the Atlantic coast. While the Western Allies trained for offensive battle.
The Russians have spent much of a whole year digging in. While Ukraine has trained for offensive battle.
There is historical precedence for Ukrainian victory.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Where will the Ukrainians attack? I don't know. But there is historical precedence for attacking in the second most likely area.
In 1940, the Germans did not attack in the most likely area, Northern Belgium, through the plains, but in the second most likely area, through the hilly and forested terrain of Southern Belgium.
In 1944, the Allied did not attack in the most likely area, the shortest distance across the Channel into the Calais area, but instead in the second most likely area, Normandy. Further for the ships to sail to, but still within range. Further for planes to provide air cover, but still within range. And with far fewer German troops defending.
The best place for Ukraine to attack is through Zaporizhzhia. It would, largely, cut off Russian troops in Kherson and Crimea from supply. It would be a spectacular victory if these troops had to surrender. But an attack through Kherson would be good enough to likely doom the Russian troops in Crimea. And that would be a good enough victory.
The Russians spent a lot of resources securing this narrow land bridge to Crimea. Because they doubt their long term ability to hold Crimea without it. If this land bridge is cut anywhere, and that cut becomes permanent, the Russians likely will not be able to hold on to Crimea.
I would love to see a successful attack through Zaporizhzhia. But if too many Russian troops are defending there, an attack through Kherson may be the best option.
-
Ukraine war: Russia accused of using phosphorus bombs in Bakhmut
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65506993
-
Stalemate for as long as it takes appears to be the Biden plan. The war must go on and on. No one even knows why or the basis of any settlement other than Russian surrender. Something that the Ukrainians can't force. So the money will flow by the billions, the citizens of Ukraine and Russia will continue to die in the tens of thousands for months or years to come for no apparent reason, and when all is said and done nothing will have been achieved just as in Iraq and Afghanistan where the very same policy hawks lied to keep those wars going for decades.
-
Stalemate for as long as it takes appears to be the Biden plan. The war must go on and on. No one even knows why or the basis of any settlement other than Russian surrender. Something that the Ukrainians can't force. So the money will flow by the billions, the citizens of Ukraine and Russia will continue to die in the tens of thousands for months or years to come for no apparent reason, and when all is said and done nothing will have been achieved just as in Iraq and Afghanistan where the very same policy hawks lied to keep those wars going for decades.
I think there will eventually be a ceasefire and it will become a frozen conflict like the Korean war...
-
I think there will eventually be a ceasefire and it will become a frozen conflict like the Korean war...
Which could be negotiated today if there was anyone with a functioning brain in the Biden administration. For "as long as it takes" is not a policy when you don't define "it" and if "it" means the Russians are defeated on the battlefield and agree to pull out all their forces, that will mean war for years.
-
Democracy survives. No thanks to Trump. If Democracy is to survive, Trump must lose in November 2024. And he will lose. The people who defeated his candidates in November 2022 will see to that.
So if the voters elect Trump in the 2024 election that is your definition of the end of democracy? Good grief. What twisted logic. Dems have done more harm to democracy over the last six years than Trump ever dreamed. Who could ever believe that leftists would support censorship, use of the justice system to imprison political opponents and cover up corruption, endless war, and using a pandemic as an excuse to change the election laws in almost every state in a way that was most advantageous to their candidates? PA has 50 days of early voting! Which got the folks of that state a Senator who has severe brain damage and was in a mental asylum for more days than he has served in the senate. Elections were conducted for centuries on a single day - ELECTION DAY. The votes could be counted, and the winner announced within a day. Now it takes weeks or months and is fraught for abuse.
If Dems were serious about restoring confidence in our election and democracy, there would be no early voting and folks would have to go to the polls with an ID. There was obvious ballet harvesting in 2020. BOTH Trump and Biden received more votes than any presidential candidate in history. Old Joe, an 80-year-old political dinosaur who barely left his home, received millions more votes than Obama, Clinton, Reagan, JFK or anyone. A statistical outlier. Was the election "stolen" as Trump claims? No. I don't believe Dems are smart enough to do that. Particularly Biden's clown show, but they are smart enough to harvest ballots.
-
So if the voters elect Trump in the 2024 election that is your definition of the end of democracy? Good grief. What twisted logic. Dems have done more harm to democracy over the last six years than Trump ever dreamed. Who could ever believe that leftists would support censorship, use of the justice system to imprison political opponents and cover up corruption, endless war, and using a pandemic as an excuse to change the election laws in almost every state in a way that was most advantageous to their candidates? PA has 50 days of early voting! Which got the folks of that state a Senator who has severe brain damage and was in a mental asylum for more days than he has served in the senate. Elections were conducted for centuries on a single day - ELECTION DAY. The votes could be counted, and the winner announced within a day. Now it takes weeks or months and is fraught for abuse.
If Dems were serious about restoring confidence in our election and democracy, there would be no early voting and folks would have to go to the polls with an ID. There was obvious ballet harvesting in 2020. BOTH Trump and Biden received more votes than any presidential candidate in history. Old Joe, an 80-year-old political dinosaur who barely left his home, received millions more votes than Obama, Clinton, Reagan, JFK or anyone. A statistical outlier. Was the election "stolen" as Trump claims? No. I don't believe Dems are smart enough to do that. Particularly Biden's clown show, but they are smart enough to harvest ballots.
So if the voters elect Trump in the 2024 election that is your definition of the end of democracy? Good grief. What twisted logic.
No. It's an undeniable truth you're just not willing to accept. How can a guy who tried to overthrow a fair election not be considered a threat to democracy?
-
So if the voters elect Trump in the 2024 election that is your definition of the end of democracy? Good grief. What twisted logic.
No. It's an undeniable truth you're just not willing to accept. How can a guy who tried to overthrow a fair election not be considered a threat to democracy?
False premise. The 2020 election was conducted after the election laws were changed in every single state in the months just before the election. It produced a statistical outlier - more votes cast for Biden than in any election in US history. Most of those votes were cast via early voting methods created just before the election. If the reverse had happened, and Trump was elected in 2020 based upon widespread and last-minute changes in how the election was conducted, the leftists would have staged a civil war. They spent all four years of the Trump presidency trying to undermine the 2016 election with a false conspiracy theory about Russian collusion. Trump overstated the situation by claiming the election was stolen. It was not. The laws were changed. So Biden won an unfair election. There were certainly valid reasons to criticize how the 2020 election was conducted including censorship and disinformation by social media and the justice department to cover up the Hunter laptop story.
-
False premise. The 2020 election was conducted after the election laws were changed in every single state in the months just before the election. It produced a statistical outlier - more votes cast for Biden than in any election in US history. Most of those votes were cast via early voting methods created just before the election. If the reverse had happened, and Trump was elected in 2020 based upon widespread and last-minute changes in how the election was conducted, the leftists would have staged a civil war. They spent all four years of the Trump presidency trying to undermine the 2016 election with a false conspiracy theory about Russian collusion. Trump overstated the situation by claiming the election was stolen. It was not. The laws were changed. So Biden won an unfair election. There were certainly valid reasons to criticize how the 2020 election was conducted including censorship and disinformation by social media and the justice department to cover up the Hunter laptop story.
False premise.
There is no false premise. Trump tried to overthrow the election results, because he lost. Period!
If the reverse had happened, and Trump was elected in 2020 based upon widespread and last-minute changes in how the election was conducted, the leftists would have staged a civil war.
BS. It's historical fact that George W. Bush, with the help of his brother, stole the election from Al Gore. For the sake of the country Gore ultimately accepted what had happened. Trump would never have done such a thing.
Trump overstated the situation by claiming the election was stolen. It was not. The laws were changed. So Biden won an unfair election.
More BS. Biden won under the existing rules. That makes his win a fair one. And right wingers complaining about changing the laws and making new rules for elections is hilarious given the massive gerrymandering they have been engaged in for decades!
There were certainly valid reasons to criticize how the 2020 election was conducted including censorship and disinformation by social media and the justice department to cover up the Hunter laptop story.
Elections are a dirty business. Always have been and always will be. You don't have to like it. But let me ask you this; if a Republican wins an election as a consequence of recent gerrymandering would you consider that win to be a fair one?
-
Taking a time machine back to the Trump foreign policy disaster.
Trump’s National Security and Foreign Policy Failures: Year One
Twelve months into Trump’s presidency, America is more isolated and less safe.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-national-security-foreign-policy-failures-year-one/
-
Which could be negotiated today if there was anyone with a functioning brain in the Biden administration. For "as long as it takes" is not a policy when you don't define "it" and if "it" means the Russians are defeated on the battlefield and agree to pull out all their forces, that will mean war for years.
True enough. But we don't need Trump to negotiate this. We already had someone with a brain to negotiate this. Bill Clinton.
Back in the 1990's President Clinton negotiated with Russia, that in exchange for Ukraine surrendering all it's nuclear weapons to Russia, Russia would guarantee Ukraine's borders. And would never invade Ukraine. And Ukraine kept it's end of the bargain.
And so, there is no need for Trump to arrange for the peace and the security of Ukraine's borders. This has already been done.
Questions:
What, exactly, would Trump accomplish if he became President and helped negotiated peace between Ukraine and Russia?
Would it not be the sort of peace that Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler in 1938 to achieve peace in Europe?
-
BS. It's historical fact that George W. Bush, with the help of his brother, stole the election from Al Gore. For the sake of the country Gore ultimately accepted what had happened. Trump would never have done such a thing.
I respectfully disagree.
What is not clearly understood, even today, is that Al Gore did not seek a fair recount of all of Florida, to determine who really won in Florida. Al Gore sought an obviously biased recount designed for him to win, regardless of who really won Florida.
Up until December 8, 2000, Al Gore sought a recount, not of all 67 counties, but of just 4 counties. These four counties contained about a third of Florida's voters.
37.5 per cent of the votes for Gore came from these four counties
25.0 per cent of the votes for Bush came from these four counties
So, in theory, such a recount will find 37.5 per cent of all the ballots for Gore missed by the machines. But only 25 per cent of Bush's. In theory, this gives Gore the same advantage of a recount of all of Florida that is geared to finding 100 per cent of Gore's ballots, but only 87.5 per cent of Bush's. A recount of these four counties, gives to Gore, the sort of advantage that if all the votes, in all the counties, would be recounted by 8 judges. And 7 of the judges were fair and impartial. But one of the 8 was corrupt. Any Gore ballot he found would be counted as a Gore vote. But any Bush ballot he found would not be recognized and would be set aside as a non vote. Unacceptable.
And I am not a big George W. Bush fan. I did not vote from him in 2000. The two worst presidents since Nixon were George W. Bush and Trump. Although Trump by a very wide margin. The worst President by far. The only fascist President we have ever elected. I hope nothing like this ever happens again. Gore would have been a much better President. But Bush won Florida in 2000.
* * * * *
As an aside, can we please go back to having our Presidential candidates chosen by men in smoke filled rooms? And not by primaries. While this method had it's critics, it never produced a candidate who was a would-be dictator. The method by primaries seems prone to do exactly that, in 2016 and all the signs indicate it will do so again in 2024. And will likely do so in the future. I'm just asking for some method that won't do that. That's all.
Are Democrats immune to this? I don't think so. Any time in the future, if some party thinks the voting trend is going against them, they may decide to try for an Authoritarian government. Republican voters of today think the voting trend is going against them. So they support Trump. And if this effort is successful, they won't have to worry about future elections going against them.
If this effort ends up failing, who's to say that 100 years from now, that Democrats and Republicans won't change drastically. After all, 140 years ago, the Democrats were the Jim Crow party. Maybe 100 years from now, the next threat to democracy will come from Democratic primary voters?
* * * * *
Now, back to my main argument. Let's deal with the usual excuses:
* The law and Florida was messed up. There was no way to get a recount of all of Florida. Gore did the best he could.
False. Counting all undervotes and overvotes was practicable under the "Protest phase" of Florida law. But quite practicable under the "Contest phase", which Gore could have used, but did not so he could have his biased four county recount.
* Gore did try to get all of Florida recounted.
Yes. Starting on December 8. After his four county recount effort had finally totally failed in court, and he had no other option. But they only had four days, until December 12 to get this recount done, way to soon to have a fair, uniform recount done. Gore's lawyers had argued for weeks that December 12 was, or probably was, the absolute deadline.
* The newspaper's recount show Gore would have won a fair recount of all undervotes and all overvotes of all of Florida.
Yes, but Gore did not pursue that. So Bush, nor his brother stole the election from Gore. You could say that Gore stole the election from Gore. Or even that Bush and Gore stole the election from Gore. But never say that Bush stole the election from Gore. Because that would be a lie.
Gore got the biased Florida State Supreme Court to support this biased four county recount. As of December 8, the only remedy was for this same biased court to administer the recount of Florida. I did not trust that court to do that. Not after they showed their true colors in November 2000. And to do so in just four days. Which they had not set up any sort of fair recount where each county would follow the same procedure, like to count all "hanging chad" ballots the same way in all counties. Which could result in as biased a recount as the one that same court pursued in November.
The Republicans have presented a false version of history of the election of 2020. But Democrats have presented a false version of history of the election of 2000.
Question:
What information have I provided is false?
-
So if the voters elect Trump in the 2024 election that is your definition of the end of democracy? Good grief. What twisted logic.
No. It's an undeniable truth you're just not willing to accept. How can a guy who tried to overthrow a fair election not be considered a threat to democracy?
I explained it. That is a false premise. Trump believed that he won the election. He was not trying to "steal" it. That is leftist propaganda. You can argue that Trump was unreasonable in reaching his conclusion that he won the election but not that was trying to steal it. And, for the reasons already explained, there were a number of reasons to be concerned about how the 2020 election was conducted. The rules were changed in the months leading up to the election. We know that media and social media outlets suppressed information that was harmful to Biden. There was censorship and politicalization of the COVID pandemic. The net result was an outlier election with more votes for an elderly man who almost never left his house than for any other candidate in American history. If that had happened in some third world country, every sane person would have laughed at the result.
As President, Trump was the most powerful man in the world. He was commander and chief of the military. But the leftist media would have us believe that his plan to overthrow the election was to have some random hillbillies roam about the Capitol like tourists. It is laughable. No doubt some crimes were committed like vandalism and trespass but that was no effort to overthrow the election. The leftists used the event - as they did the pandemic - to promote a fake narrative.
-
I explained it. That is a false premise. Trump believed that he won the election. He was not trying to "steal" it. That is leftist propaganda. You can argue that Trump was unreasonable in reaching his conclusion that he won the election but not that was trying to steal it. And, for the reasons already explained, there were a number of reasons to be concerned about how the 2020 election was conducted. The rules were changed in the months leading up to the election. We know that media and social media outlets suppressed information that was harmful to Biden. There was censorship and politicalization of the COVID pandemic. The net result was an outlier election with more votes for an elderly man who almost never left his house than for any other candidate in American history. If that had happened in some third world country, every sane person would have laughed at the result.
As President, Trump was the most powerful man in the world. He was commander and chief of the military. But the leftist media would have us believe that his plan to overthrow the election was to have some random hillbillies roam about the Capitol like tourists. It is laughable. No doubt some crimes were committed like vandalism and trespass but that was no effort to overthrow the election. The leftists used the event - as they did the pandemic - to promote a fake narrative.
Trump believed that he won the election.
Even if he did believe that, it still doesn't alter the fact that he lost and it most certainly doesn't give him the right to try to overthrow the results of the election.
He was not trying to "steal" it. That is leftist propaganda.
BS. That's exactly what he was trying to do...... When you start calling officials and ask to "find" 11.000 + votes (that did not exist) and you are trying to use fake electors, you are trying to steal the election. To deny this is just foolish.
And, for the reasons already explained, there were a number of reasons to be concerned about how the 2020 election was conducted.
If he didn't agree with the new rules, why did he not object before the election? That would have been the right way to do it. I seriously doubt he would have complained about the rules if he had won the election.
As President, Trump was the most powerful man in the world. He was commander and chief of the military. But the leftist media would have us believe that his plan to overthrow the election was to have some random hillbillies roam about the Capitol like tourists. It is laughable.
Sure, that would be laughable, but they were not hillbillie tourist. Maybe some went there for a peaceful demonstration but guys like the Proud boys (Stand down and stand by) didn't go there for peaceful protest. They prepared weeks in advance and they are now paying the price in court, as did a few hundered other people so far. What is truly laughable is the pathetic right wing attempt to pretend it was nothing more than some tourists who were sightseeing at the Capitol.
And, yes, at that time Trump was the most powerful man in the world as well commander and chief of the military but that doesn't mean he could overthrow the rightfully elected government by himself. He needed the help of the military and he wasn't getting it. To protect democracy it takes brave men to stand up to a wannabe dictator! That's why Trump figured he needed his own private militia.
No doubt some crimes were committed like vandalism and trespass but that was no effort to overthrow the election.
For crying out loud, he wanted Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden as the winner of the election. How is that not an attempt to overthrow the election? What planet are you from?
-
The United States will always defend our allies and our national security. Only traitors would be against defending our national interests and our democracy.
Pentagon confirms Ukraine downed Russian missile with Patriot system
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3996387-pentagon-confirms-ukraine-downed-russian-missile-with-patriot-system/or
-
I explained it. That is a false premise. Trump believed that he won the election. He was not trying to "steal" it. That is leftist propaganda. You can argue that Trump was unreasonable in reaching his conclusion that he won the election but not that was trying to steal it. And, for the reasons already explained, there were a number of reasons to be concerned about how the 2020 election was conducted. The rules were changed in the months leading up to the election. We know that media and social media outlets suppressed information that was harmful to Biden. There was censorship and politicalization of the COVID pandemic. The net result was an outlier election with more votes for an elderly man who almost never left his house than for any other candidate in American history. If that had happened in some third world country, every sane person would have laughed at the result.
So, you are a strong defender of democracy. And believe that no man has the right to overturn a fair election. Anyone who does so must be prosecuted to the utmost of the law. Unless they profess that they actually won. And, I should remind you, that the law does not make any special exceptions, for people who insist that they were the real winner.
This makes about as much sense as saying people cannot commit murder. Unless they insist that they believed they were acting in self defense. And so they must not be prosecuted. Even though there is no evidence that backs up their belief that caused them to ambushed someone, and take their wallet, because they thought they were going to be killed.
I submit that this stand does nothing to protect democracy. Because anyone who wants to overturn a fair election will simply insist that they are the real winner. And thereby make themselves immune to prosecution. As Trump is trying to do. It makes a mockery of law.
As President, Trump was the most powerful man in the world. He was commander and chief of the military. But the leftist media would have us believe that his plan to overthrow the election was to have some random hillbillies roam about the Capitol like tourists. It is laughable. No doubt some crimes were committed like vandalism and trespass but that was no effort to overthrow the election. The leftists used the event - as they did the pandemic - to promote a fake narrative.
Why didn't Trump simply use the military? Because, under General Milley, they would disobey President Trump's orders. The problem is, members of the military do not take an oath to obey whatever order the president issues to them. They take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that can include the President of the United States, if he turns traitor, violates the oath he gave to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, face to face, to protect and defend the constitution.
So Trump used the groups that would obey him. The radical MAGA crowd and Proud Boys.
-
Which could be negotiated today if there was anyone with a functioning brain in the Biden administration. For "as long as it takes" is not a policy when you don't define "it" and if "it" means the Russians are defeated on the battlefield and agree to pull out all their forces, that will mean war for years.
What Richard Smith wants is a Neville Chamberlain for American. He believes that is what America needs. And Donald Trump can be that man.
In 1938, Britain found the man they were looking for. Someone who would force Hitler to promise to not attack any of his neighbors, after occupying the Sudetenland. And Chamberlain accomplished that for them. And he believes that Trump can accomplish that for us today. I think Richard is right. Trump can negotiate peace with Russia. And be just as effected as Neville Chamberlain.
For a relatively cheap price, compared to our billions of spending over 70 years to defend against Russia, we are giving Ukraine just enough support, to trash the Russian army. Which makes them less able to invade other counties. And this benefits Ukraine as well, since it prevents them from being ruled by Putin. A fate I would not wish on my worst enemies, except for, perhaps, the MAGA crowd, who, if they get there way, will Make Russia Great Again.
-
Russia isn’t a threat to America and they’re not Nazi Germany.
There’s no rational reason for Americans to be paying more to help Ukraine than the EU.
-
Trump believed that he won the election.
Even if he did believe that, it still doesn't alter the fact that he lost and it most certainly doesn't give him the right to try to overthrow the results of the election.
He was not trying to "steal" it. That is leftist propaganda.
BS. That's exactly what he was trying to do...... When you start calling officials and ask to "find" 11.000 + votes (that did not exist) and you are trying to use fake electors, you are trying to steal the election. To deny this is just foolish.
And, for the reasons already explained, there were a number of reasons to be concerned about how the 2020 election was conducted.
If he didn't agree with the new rules, why did he not object before the election? That would have been the right way to do it. I seriously doubt he would have complained about the rules if he had won the election.
As President, Trump was the most powerful man in the world. He was commander and chief of the military. But the leftist media would have us believe that his plan to overthrow the election was to have some random hillbillies roam about the Capitol like tourists. It is laughable.
Sure, that would be laughable, but they were not hillbillie tourist. Maybe some went there for a peaceful demonstration but guys like the Proud boys (Stand down and stand by) didn't go there for peaceful protest. They prepared weeks in advance and they are now paying the price in court, as did a few hundered other people so far. What is truly laughable is the pathetic right wing attempt to pretend it was nothing more than some tourists who were sightseeing at the Capitol.
And, yes, at that time Trump was the most powerful man in the world as well commander and chief of the military but that doesn't mean he could overthrow the rightfully elected government by himself. He needed the help of the military and he wasn't getting it. To protect democracy it takes brave men to stand up to a wannabe dictator! That's why Trump figured he needed his own private militia.
No doubt some crimes were committed like vandalism and trespass but that was no effort to overthrow the election.
For crying out loud, he wanted Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden as the winner of the election. How is that not an attempt to overthrow the election? What planet are you from?
Hillary and leftists spent years after 2016 claiming the election was stolen. And Trump did protest the election rule changes in the months prior to the 2020 election. He had no control over how states conducted their elections, however. What would ever happen if an election was rigged? Would you suggest that the loser not protest? That it would be against Democracy to point out that an election had been rigged? Trump believed he was cheated out of the election. There is validity to his claims. What he didn't believe or ever say is that he believed he lost the election and was attempting to overturn the results.
-
So, you are a strong defender of democracy. And believe that no man has the right to overturn a fair election. Anyone who does so must be prosecuted to the utmost of the law. Unless they profess that they actually won. And, I should remind you, that the law does not make any special exceptions, for people who insist that they were the real winner.
This makes about as much sense as saying people cannot commit murder. Unless they insist that they believed they were acting in self defense. And so they must not be prosecuted. Even though there is no evidence that backs up their belief that caused them to ambushed someone, and take their wallet, because they thought they were going to be killed.
There is no doubt that if Trump and the republicans had changed the election laws in the months leading up to the 2020 election in such a way as to decide the outcome, that Dems would have rioted and likely engaged in a civil war. There is no way that Dems could have squared such changes with democracy. In fact, Dems would have claimed that Trump was acting like a dictator and protests about the election would have been deemed not only justified but noble in the cause of democracy. This was all done legally by the Dems with the assistance of the many establishment republicans. The election, therefore, was not stolen as Trump insists. It was conducted lawfully but unfairly and Trump lost. That combined with what he know now was a concerted effort of the media working in concert with the FBI and CIA to cover up information that was harmful to Biden, however, is cause for grave concern in a democracy. But the ends always justify the means for modern day leftist. Anything goes if it promotes keeping Trump from being elected.
-
What Richard Smith wants is a Neville Chamberlain for American. He believes that is what America needs. And Donald Trump can be that man.
In 1938, Britain found the man they were looking for. Someone who would force Hitler to promise to not attack any of his neighbors, after occupying the Sudetenland. And Chamberlain accomplished that for them. And he believes that Trump can accomplish that for us today. I think Richard is right. Trump can negotiate peace with Russia. And be just as effected as Neville Chamberlain.
For a relatively cheap price, compared to our billions of spending over 70 years to defend against Russia, we are giving Ukraine just enough support, to trash the Russian army. Which makes them less able to invade other counties. And this benefits Ukraine as well, since it prevents them from being ruled by Putin. A fate I would not wish on my worst enemies, except for, perhaps, the MAGA crowd, who, if they get there way, will Make Russia Great Again.
There is no evidence that Russia ever intended to invade any other country. None. Even if that were the intent, the inability to overrun even the pro-Russian regions of Ukraine confirms that they pose no real threat. And you are always drawing incorrect analogies from history. This regional conflict doesn't reflect the WWII situation. It is more akin to the situation that existed at the beginning of WWI. A regional conflict between people that no one ever heard of expanded to a global conflict based on a series of alliances and weak leaders. They allowed a small conflict between regional factions to get out of hand and engulf the entire world. A bitter lesson being repeated by Ukraine Joe. This conflict should have been settled quickly. It should never have started. "Minor incursion" Joe bungled it. He has no plan for what to do next or how to end it. Just "as long as it takes." What does he mean by "it"? No one knows. Certainly not Joe. The only people who are benefitting are the American military contractors and Pentagon war hawks. The money flowing is endless. This war just replaced Afghanistan. The old war hawks from Dr. Strangelove are finally getting to fight Russia. Same old story, just a different place. America has been involved in such conflicts almost continuously now for 60 years. It would be impossible to name a single positive result.
-
Thanks to the strong effective leadership of President Biden rallying our allies together, Poland is now sending 10 fighter jets to Ukraine to defeat Putin.
It was President Biden who made Poland understand that air power is critical and decisive in modern warfare.
That's what a real leader does instead of a traitor like Criminal Donald selling America and our allies like Ukraine out to Putin.
Igor Sushko @igorsushko
The amazing Poland has transferred 10 Mig-29 fighter jets to Ukraine!
Watch: https://twitter.com/i/status/1655622784943550464
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1655622784943550464
-
Magnificent to hear Trump speak about the situation in Ukraine. The idiotic CNN commentator kept asking him who he wanted to "win" the war. And Trump kept noting that it was important to end the war and save lives of both Russians and Ukranians. A stark contrast to Ukraine Joe and his "plan" to keep this war going for years.
-
Magnificent to hear Trump speak about the situation in Ukraine. The idiotic CNN commentator kept asking him who he wanted to "win" the war. And Trump kept noting that it was important to end the war and save lives of both Russians and Ukranians. A stark contrast to Ukraine Joe and his "plan" to keep this war going for years.
Trump came away sounding more mature on the Ukraine war than most politicians.
-
Trump came away sounding more mature on the Ukraine war than most politicians.
Yes, he gave a great answer. What is needed is a plan to end the war. Not endless war in which thousands of Ukranians continue to die for years. The leftists want this to go on and on forever. The idea that this war just goes on for "as long as it takes" is not a policy. That is what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Is anyone better off for the years spent in those wars? Trump also noted the supreme irony that the US and not "Europe" is once again bearing the cost of a war that we are told is being conducted to protect "Europe." They don't seem too worried about the Russians, though, since they have all checked out.
-
Donald Trump is an absolute joke. His failed policies destroyed America and made us less safe a a nation. World leaders would openly mock Donnie and they had no respect for him. Here is solid evidence of Trump being a laughing stock around the world.
World Leaders Caught on Camera Mocking Trump
Watch:
-
This is real simple. Under Trump - no wars or invasions. Under Ukraine Joe endless war. No end in sight or even an articulated objective or plan to end it. It will just go on "for as long as it takes." What "it" is has not been articulated. Tens of thousands have already died. Countless more will die due to Old Joe's incompetency.
-
Glory to Ukraine!
Russian Attempt to Cover Up Bakhmut Retreat Majorly Backfires
Wagner Group head Yevgeniy Prigozhin claimed Russia is fleeing on the back foot, not regrouping
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-attempt-to-cover-up-bakhmut-retreat-majorly-backfires
-
Under Trump - no invasion. No deaths.
Under Old Joe - endless war. Tens of thousands dead. Cities destroyed. Hundreds of billions wasted. No plan. On and on it goes without the US articulating any policy objective or manner to bring about a settlement.
-
Under Trump - no invasion. No deaths.
Under Old Joe - endless war. Tens of thousands dead. Cities destroyed. Hundreds of billions wasted. No plan. On and on it goes without the US articulating any policy objective or manner to bring about a settlement.
Which country did Joe Biden invade and/or send troops to?
Are you sure you don't get your information from some video game?
In the past couple of days, Italy promised Ukraine all the help they can give for as long as it takes. Germany did the same and gave Ukraine 2,7 Billion Euros worth of military equipment, while Poland is sending them fighter planes. The U.K. has just send them long range cruise missiles and several EU countries have donated the most modern tanks.
At the same time Russian soldiers are surrendering and deserting. The Wagner Group has had enough of Putin's BS and is desperately threatening to leave Bakhmut because of a lack of ammunition and your hero Putin completely embarressed himself by holding a parade with only one 80 years old tank.
If you want to complain about the war in Ukraine, you need to talk to the guy who started it, instead of complaining about those who are actually trying to save the country from a brutal dictator.
-
Four Russian military aircraft shot down near Ukraine, Russian daily reports
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/videos-show-helicopter-apparently-shot-down-russia-near-ukrainian-border-2023-05-13/
-
Under Trump - no invasion. No deaths.
Under Old Joe - endless war. Tens of thousands dead. Cities destroyed. Hundreds of billions wasted. No plan. On and on it goes without the US articulating any policy objective or manner to bring about a settlement.
More falsehoods and propaganda. Putin was already attacking Ukraine under Criminal Donald in 2018.
Why The Crisis Between Ukraine And Russia Has Taken To The Sea
November 28, 2018
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/28/671615172/why-the-crisis-between-ukraine-and-russia-has-taken-to-the-sea
-
President Biden rallied our allies together and now the United Kingdom is helping Ukraine with more weapons to defeat Putin.
Zelensky meets PM as more Ukraine weapons pledged
The UK will send hundreds of air defence missiles and armed drones to Ukraine on top of the Storm Shadow cruise missiles announced last week.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/108E5/production/_129731876_a4e2870829c2e848207c70cc8498e4e52c319424.jpg.webp)
The move means the UK is going further than any other country in providing weapons with the potential to tip the battlefield in Ukraine's favour.
Earlier, President Volodymyr Zelensky met the UK's Rishi Sunak as part of his tour of Western allies.
Mr Zelensky said it was important for the West to send fighter jets as well.
But the prime minister said providing fighter jets was "not a straightforward thing", although he did say the UK would form "a key part of the coalition countries" providing that support.
Ukraine is continuing to prepare for a much-anticipated counter-offensive against Russian forces.
Last week, Mr Zelensky told the BBC his country needed more weaponry before it could launch the attack.
On Monday, the Ukrainian president had about two hours of talks with Mr Sunak at Chequers, near London.
He arrived on British soil for a surprise visit after a whirlwind tour of Western Europe that also took in Rome, Berlin and Paris.
Mr Zelensky said Ukraine and the UK were "real partners", while Mr Sunak's spokesman described the meeting as "warm and collegiate".
The Storm Shadow cruise missiles can be used to destroy Russia's positions on occupied Ukrainian territory.
If Ukraine can destroy Russia's command centres, logistics hubs and ammunition depots in occupied territory, then it may prove impossible for Moscow to continue resupplying its frontline troops in places.
This is what Ukraine did so successfully in Kherson last year, forcing the Russians to withdraw almost without a fight. It will now be hoping to repeat the process with the help of Western-supplied munitions.
President Zelensky's repeated calls for Nato to send F-16 jets are being met with delays and obfuscations, for several reasons.
The Ukrainian air force has trained its pilots on F-16s, which the RAF do not use, but such training takes months, not days.
Logistics, maintenance and the need to find suitable runways are all important too.
Finally, there is the question of escalation. Nato is struggling to balance giving Kyiv the maximum support it can, without getting directly drawn into this conflict.
If Nato does end up sending F-16 warplanes, however old they may be, then that, in Moscow's eyes, constitutes a major provocation by the West.
Mr Zelensky said he discussed the supply of Western fighter jets with Mr Sunak.
New jets were a "very important topic for us, because we can't control the sky", the Ukrainian leader added.
"We spoke about it and I see that in the closest time you will hear some, I think, very important decisions, but we have to work a little bit more on it," he said.
The UK has no plans to send fighter jets to Ukraine, according to the prime minister's official spokesman.
But No 10 said elementary training for Ukrainian pilots would begin this summer, along with British efforts to work with other countries on providing F-16 jets to Ukraine.
The prime minister's official spokesman also denied that any drones supplied by the UK would be used to hit targets inside Russia.
They would be used for the defence of Ukraine on Ukrainian sovereign territory, the spokesman said.
Mr Sunak said: "This is a crucial moment in Ukraine's resistance to a terrible war of aggression they did not choose or provoke.
"They need the sustained support of the international community to defend against the barrage of unrelenting and indiscriminate attacks that have been their daily reality for over a year."
In response, Russia said the new British weapons due to be supplied to Kyiv would only cause "further destruction".
"Britain aspires to position itself at the forefront of the countries that continue to pump weapons into Ukraine," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
European support
Ukraine secured a new defence aid package from Germany after talks in Berlin with Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Sunday, taking its total military funding to nearly $7bn (£6.44bn).
Mr Zelensky described the new pledge of German Leopard tanks and anti-aircraft systems as "the largest since the beginning of the full-scale aggression" by Russia in February 2022.
France has promised dozens more light tanks and armoured vehicles after President Emmanuel Macron met his Ukrainian counterpart in Paris.
In February, Mr Zelensky visited London for the first time since the start of the war, during which he attended an audience with the King and addressed Parliament.
His latest visit to the UK comes ahead of a G7 gathering in Hiroshima, Japan, later this week which will also be attended by Mr Sunak.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65594540
-
Zelensky's world tour asking "Europe" for money is hilarious. They are all for photo ops with him but are leaving it to the US to pay the bill. Ukraine Joe is happy to oblige since the money is flowing like the great Mississippi to lobbyists. A corrupt system that has put he US in some endless foreign war for the last 60 years and counting. And what is the plan? There is none. What is the objective? Hope Russia gives up. Good luck Joe. Of course, Ukraine Joe and the war hawks dont' want the war to ever end. They are making out like bandits and tying up Russia in a conflict. A win-win for them while the people of Ukraine suffer. They will curse Old Joe for centuries.
-
Zelensky's world tour asking "Europe" for money is hilarious. They are all for photo ops with him but are leaving it to the US to pay the bill. Ukraine Joe is happy to oblige since the money is flowing like the great Mississippi to lobbyists. A corrupt system that has put he US in some endless foreign war for the last 60 years and counting. And what is the plan? There is none. What is the objective? Hope Russia gives up. Good luck Joe. Of course, Ukraine Joe and the war hawks dont' want the war to ever end. They are making out like bandits and tying up Russia in a conflict. A win-win for them while the people of Ukraine suffer. They will curse Old Joe for centuries.
They are all for photo ops with him but are leaving it to the US to pay the bill.
Total and utter BS
-
They are all for photo ops with him but are leaving it to the US to pay the bill.
Total and utter BS
Another valuable contribution supported by facts and data.
-
While Zelensky is telling the world that Russia is on the defensive, they are attacking Kiev. He is sounding more like Baghdad Bob. The US has provided him with three times the entire Russian military budget and, at best, there is a stalemate. And no end in sight with Ukraine Joe providing no leadership or plan. It is like the border. Events are just running their course with no leadership.
-
Another valuable contribution supported by facts and data.
You don't know what facts and data are.... All you are spewing is propaganda.
Earlier this week, Germany alone gave Ukraine more support in money and equipment than the US had done.
Combined, in funds and material, the EU is outspending the US, so nobody is leaving the US to pay the bill.
My comment that what you wrote is total and utter BS is factual.
-
While Zelensky is telling the world that Russia is on the defensive, they are attacking Kiev. He is sounding more like Baghdad Bob. The US has provided him with three times the entire Russian military budget and, at best, there is a stalemate. And no end in sight with Ukraine Joe providing no leadership or plan. It is like the border. Events are just running their course with no leadership.
While Zelensky is telling the world that Russia is on the defensive, they are attacking Kiev.
With drones and long range missiles which were all intercepted. Putin is getting desperate. During the Eurovision song contest, he attacked the town where the Ukraine entry came from. How pathetic!
This is Putin's army;
-
While Zelensky is telling the world that Russia is on the defensive, they are attacking Kiev.
With drones and long range missiles which were all intercepted.
There’s video evidence of Ukrainian air defenses, possibly a Patriot missile system in Kyiv, being hit last night. So no, Ukraine isn’t intercepting 100% of Russia’s drones and missiles.
Putin is getting desperate. During the Eurovision song contest, he attacked the town where the Ukraine entry came from. How pathetic!
(https://www.moonofalabama.org/16i/khmelni3.jpg)
Based on the secondary explosions, there clearly was ammunition at the site of that air strike.
It’s naive to believe the propaganda that Russia only strikes civilian targets and never Ukrainian military targets.
Most of the mainstream media is pro-Ukraine so they rarely challenge or even question the BS that Ukrainian officials say.
-
There’s video evidence of Ukrainian air defenses, possibly a Patriot missile system in Kyiv, being hit last night. So no, Ukraine isn’t intercepting 100% of Russia’s drones and missiles.
(https://www.moonofalabama.org/16i/khmelni3.jpg)
Based on the secondary explosions, there clearly was ammunition at the site of that air strike.
It’s naive to believe the propaganda that Russia only strikes civilian targets and never Ukrainian military targets.
Most of the mainstream media is pro-Ukraine so they rarely challenge or even question the BS that Ukrainian officials say.
Putin lover, are you?
There’s video evidence of Ukrainian air defenses, possibly a Patriot missile system in Kyiv, being hit last night. So no, Ukraine isn’t intercepting 100% of Russia’s drones and missiles.
There are vidoes and then there are videos. You can speculate all you want but European reporters on the ground from the likes of the BBC are saying most, if not all, Russian drones and missiles were intercepted. But even if they only shot down 8 out of every ten, what does that say about the Russian military.
It’s naive to believe the propaganda that Russia only strikes civilian targets and never Ukrainian military targets.
Nobody is saying that, so why would you bring it up? Regardless, it is a well proven fact that a lot of Russian attacks are against civilian targets. That alone says enough about Putin and his ilk.
Attacking the home town of a couple of singers just before they participated in the Eurovision song contest is just childish and sick. It served no military purpose at all.
Most of the mainstream media is pro-Ukraine so they rarely challenge or even question the BS that Ukrainian officials say.
But you, as a keyboard cowboy can determine what is BS and what isn't? Give me a break.... :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
You don't know what facts and data are.... All you are spewing is propaganda.
Earlier this week, Germany alone gave Ukraine more support in money and equipment than the US had done.
Combined, in funds and material, the EU is outspending the US, so nobody is leaving the US to pay the bill.
My comment that what you wrote is total and utter BS is factual.
You sound unhinged on the topic. There is no doubt that "Europe" has made some token donations, but the US is providing the vast majority of military support. Hundreds of billions. How about this? Why don't you travel to Ukraine and fight the Russians? You need to stop them there - right? Or they will overrun "Europe." Another of so many lies that have been told to the gullible. Russian collusion, Hunter's laptop the product of disinformation, COVID did not originate in a lab, the Russians blew up their own pipeline. HA HA HA.
-
Putin lover, are you?
There’s video evidence of Ukrainian air defenses, possibly a Patriot missile system in Kyiv, being hit last night. So no, Ukraine isn’t intercepting 100% of Russia’s drones and missiles.
There are vidoes and then there are videos. You can speculate all you want but European reporters on the ground from the likes of the BBC are saying most, if not all, Russian drones and missiles were intercepted. But even if they only shot down 8 out of every ten, what does that say about the Russian military.
Russia is fighting a modern military, not the Taliban or Iraq. The US hasn’t faced a peer military opponent since maybe the Korean war. So the fact that Ukraine is able to intercept some or many of Russia’s missiles doesn’t surprise me. This is what modern warfare between two peer military competitors looks like.
It may very well be true that some or most of Russia’s missiles were intercepted. But there’s video footage from Kyiv last night confirming that some targets were hit by missiles.
Ukraine’s claim that “100% were intercepted” is likely disinformation.
Ukraine has every incentive to lie and embellish stuff in order to justify asking the US and other countries to continue supporting them. But we and the Press aren’t obligated to unconditionally support Ukraine or believe their BS…
Attacking the home town of a couple of singers just before they participated in the Eurovision song contest is just childish and sick. It served no military purpose at all.
See the photo in my last post and the photo below:
(https://www.moonofalabama.org/16i/khmelni2.jpg)
An ammo depot was bombed, not civilians or civilian infrastructure. That some contestants in Eurovision live there is probably a coincidence.
-
Russia is fighting a modern military, not the Taliban or Iraq. The US hasn’t faced a peer military opponent since maybe the Korean war. So the fact that Ukraine is able to intercept some or many of Russia’s missiles doesn’t surprise me. This is what modern warfare between two peer military competitors looks like.
It may very well be true that some or most of Russia’s missiles were intercepted. But there’s video footage from Kyiv last night confirming that some targets were hit by missiles.
Ukraine’s claim that “100% were intercepted” is likely disinformation.
Ukraine has every incentive to lie and embellish stuff in order to justify asking the US and other countries to continue supporting them. But we and the Press aren’t obligated to unconditionally support Ukraine or believe their BS…
See the photo in my last post and the photo below:
(https://www.moonofalabama.org/16i/khmelni2.jpg)
An ammo depot was bombed, not civilians or civilian infrastructure. That some contestants in Eurovision live there is probably a coincidence.
A classic modern propaganda tactic dating back to WWI is to allege atrocities are being committed against civilians. Orphans are being massacred. Hospitals bombed. Nuns are being ravaged etc. There are people whose job it is to enflame the public for a cause, and they know the triggers. No doubt that Russians have committed crimes but that holds true for Ukranians. It's a war. People are dying due to Biden's weakness and incompetence. It will continue until someone with a plan comes along to bring it to an end. Ukraine Joe is not that person. His "as long as it takes" nonsense just relies on the fighting to continue until the Russians make a unilateral decision that they are done. That could be next month or ten years from now. It puts the decision solely in Putin's hands.
-
A classic modern propaganda tactic dating back to WWI is to allege atrocities are being committed against civilians. Orphans are being massacred. Hospitals bombed. Nuns are being ravaged etc. There are people whose job it is to enflame the public for a cause, and they know the triggers. No doubt that Russians have committed crimes but that holds true for Ukranians. It's a war. People are dying due to Biden's weakness and incompetence. It will continue until someone with a plan comes along to bring it to an end. Ukraine Joe is not that person. His "as long as it takes" nonsense just relies on the fighting to continue until the Russians make a unilateral decision that they are done. That could be next month or ten years from now. It puts the decision solely in Putin's hands.
This is true. Almost every war is framed in “good vs evil” terms.
The true intentions of the war are typically overshadowed by humanitarian justifications.
As for last night’s missile strikes where Ukraine claimed to have intercepted “all the missiles”, the US has confirmed that one of the Patriot missile batteries given to Ukraine was damaged:
CNN - US assessing potential damage of Patriot missile defense system following Russian attack near Kyiv
A US-made Patriot air defense system was likely damaged, but not destroyed, as the result of a Russian missile barrage in and around Kyiv early Tuesday morning local time, a US official tells CNN.
The US is still assessing to what degree the system was damaged, the official said. That will determine whether the system needs to be pulled back entirely or simply repaired on the spot by Ukrainians forces.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html
-
You sound unhinged on the topic. There is no doubt that "Europe" has made some token donations, but the US is providing the vast majority of military support. Hundreds of billions. How about this? Why don't you travel to Ukraine and fight the Russians? You need to stop them there - right? Or they will overrun "Europe." Another of so many lies that have been told to the gullible. Russian collusion, Hunter's laptop the product of disinformation, COVID did not originate in a lab, the Russians blew up their own pipeline. HA HA HA.
There is no doubt that "Europe" has made some token donations, but the US is providing the vast majority of military support. Hundreds of billions.
You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it will never become true. Get your facts straight and show us some actual evidence for the "hundreds of billions" that the US has provided.
You need to stop them there - right? Or they will overrun "Europe."
Stop making up stuff. Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO. But yes they need to be stopped in Ukraine, for two reasons;
(1) There are more regions along the Russian border that Putin would like to annex and (2) Not stopping Putin gives a signal to all the dictators of the world that they can do as they please because nobody will do anything about it.
China will invade Taiwan if they see an opportunity and the American economy will suffer badly as a consequence. The mere fact that you don't understand something so basic tells us all we need to know about you.
-
Russia is fighting a modern military, not the Taliban or Iraq. The US hasn’t faced a peer military opponent since maybe the Korean war. So the fact that Ukraine is able to intercept some or many of Russia’s missiles doesn’t surprise me. This is what modern warfare between two peer military competitors looks like.
It may very well be true that some or most of Russia’s missiles were intercepted. But there’s video footage from Kyiv last night confirming that some targets were hit by missiles.
Ukraine’s claim that “100% were intercepted” is likely disinformation.
Ukraine has every incentive to lie and embellish stuff in order to justify asking the US and other countries to continue supporting them. But we and the Press aren’t obligated to unconditionally support Ukraine or believe their BS…
Ukraine has every incentive to lie and embellish stuff in order to justify asking the US and other countries to continue supporting them.
There is no doubt that Ukraine is embellishing stuff to get more aid. A big part of war is propaganda. Russia does it as well. But you seem to think, rather foolishly, that countries supporting Ukraine are simply doing so based on propaganda. That's simply not true.
But we and the Press aren’t obligated to unconditionally support Ukraine or believe their BS…
True.. but should we believe the Russian foreign minister when he claimed (recently) that Ukraine actually invaded Russia?
This isn't a conflict that just surfaced. Russia has been at this game for years when they simply stole the Crimea from Ukraine.
Russia is the sole aggressor here and as such the media (or at least most of them) are on the right side of history by supporting Ukraine.
See the photo in my last post and the photo below:
(https://www.moonofalabama.org/16i/khmelni2.jpg)
An ammo depot was bombed, not civilians or civilian infrastructure. That some contestants in Eurovision live there is probably a coincidence.
These photos are utterly meaningless, as we don't know where and when they were taken.
That some contestants in Eurovision live there is probably a coincidence.
Yeah right.... Ukraine won the song contest last year. Russia is banned from participating. The song contest is one of the television events that draws the largest audience every year. And you actually believe that Russia attacking the hometown of the contestants a day before the event is a "coincidence"..... WOW..... I mean WOW.....
I have a bridge in London for sale.... would you be interested?
-
Ukraine has every incentive to lie and embellish stuff in order to justify asking the US and other countries to continue supporting them.
There is no doubt that Ukraine is embellishing stuff to get more aid. A big part of war is propaganda. Russia does it as well. But you seem to think, rather foolishly, that countries supporting Ukraine are simply doing so based on propaganda. That's simply not true.
It’s clear as day that countries supporting Ukraine are propagandizing their own populations in order to justify sending billions in aid to Ukraine.
Polling shows that support for aid to Ukraine is higher when the public perceives them as “winning” and lower when Russia is perceived as “winning”.
So it’s important for the western media to avoid portraying Ukraine as fighting an unwinnable war even though that likely is the reality of the war currently. A stalemate may be the best-case scenario for Ukraine. But few western media outlets or western politicians express that view as plainly as I have.
Brookings Institute:
“As we have shown in previous polls, the degree of support for Ukraine is highly correlated with the public’s evaluation of Ukraine winning or Russia losing. In the October poll, we noted stories stressing Ukrainian successes and Russian failures, which may have accounted for higher confidence in the outcome. In the newest poll, there is a marked drop in the assessment that Ukraine is winning, and Russia is losing — a drop that echoes the decline in the public’s preparedness to pay a price for supporting Ukraine: Overall, the assessment that Russia is losing fell from 48% in October to 37% in April, and the assessment that Ukraine is succeeding went from 43% in October to 26% in April. It is also notable that there were parallel drops in the assessments of both Republicans and Democrats.”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2023/04/28/americans-show-signs-of-impatience-with-ukraine-war/
-
It’s clear as day that countries supporting Ukraine are propagandizing their own populations in order to justify sending billions in aid to Ukraine.
Polling shows that support for aid to Ukraine is higher when the public perceives them as “winning” and lower when Russia is perceived as “winning”.
So it’s important for the western media to avoid portraying Ukraine as fighting an unwinnable war even though that likely is the reality of the war currently. A stalemate may be the best-case scenario for Ukraine. But few western media outlets or western politicians express that view as plainly as I have.
Brookings Institute:
“As we have shown in previous polls, the degree of support for Ukraine is highly correlated with the public’s evaluation of Ukraine winning or Russia losing. In the October poll, we noted stories stressing Ukrainian successes and Russian failures, which may have accounted for higher confidence in the outcome. In the newest poll, there is a marked drop in the assessment that Ukraine is winning, and Russia is losing — a drop that echoes the decline in the public’s preparedness to pay a price for supporting Ukraine: Overall, the assessment that Russia is losing fell from 48% in October to 37% in April, and the assessment that Ukraine is succeeding went from 43% in October to 26% in April. It is also notable that there were parallel drops in the assessments of both Republicans and Democrats.”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2023/04/28/americans-show-signs-of-impatience-with-ukraine-war/
It’s clear as day that countries supporting Ukraine are propagandizing their own populations in order to justify sending billions in aid to Ukraine.
It is clear as day that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. But this exactly is what a pro-Russian fool would argue.
So it’s important for the western media to avoid portraying Ukraine as fighting an unwinnable war even though that likely is the reality of the war currently. A stalemate may be the best-case scenario for Ukraine. But few western media outlets or western politicians express that view as plainly as I have.
BS. Unlike the right wing US media, European media, for the biggest part, are just reporting on the conflict without predicting an outcome. The reason why Western media and politicians have not expressed your view is simply because your view is biased, speculative and probably wishful thinking.
Btw. why are you only looking at this for the Ukraine perspective? Can Russia win this war? No they can't. We know that by now, so what's the best-case scenario for Russia?
-
The Ukraine Disaster Reveals How Trump Corrupted U.S. Diplomacy
October 4, 2019
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/donald-trump-state-department-kurt-volker-ukraine
-
Can Russia win this war? No they can't. We know that by now, so what's the best-case scenario for Russia?
I don’t think either side can outright win the war. At this point, a stalemate is the best-case scenario for both sides.
For Ukraine, the Zelensky government survives Putin’s attempt to break them. The cost of the war to Russia likely buys a few decades of peace between Russia and Ukraine once this war ends.
For Russia, Putin stays in power (assuming he’s still in power when the war ends) and Ukraine stays out of NATO.
There likely won’t be any clear winners when this war ends.
-
Anyone attacking President Biden for helping Ukraine to stop a murderous dictator like Putin is anti American.
The majority of Americans support President Biden, NATO, and Ukraine as a new PEW poll indicates.
Americans Hold Positive Feelings Toward NATO and Ukraine, See Russia as an Enemy
Majorities of U.S. adults have favorable views of Ukraine itself, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and have confidence in Ukraine’s leader, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. At the same time, few have positive opinions of Russia or confidence in its ruler, President Vladimir Putin. And a 64% majority view Russia as an enemy to the United States, rather than as a competitor or partner.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/05/10/americans-hold-positive-feelings-toward-nato-and-ukraine-see-russia-as-an-enemy/
-
You need to stop them there - right? Or they will overrun "Europe."
Stop making up stuff. Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO. But yes they need to be stopped in Ukraine, for two reasons;
I agree. Russia won't overrun Europe. But only because of the strong stand being taken by Ukraine, the U. S. and western Europe.
But if things change, this could happen.
If we withdraw our support of Ukraine, Ukraine could eventually fall to Russia.
If we continue to appear weak, the west pares it's armies, Russia could launch a sudden attack to occupy some or all of the Baltic states. And, before NATO launches a strong counter attack, Russia could draw a 'Red Line', declare the Baltics are sacred to Russia and will result in a Nuclear war if we attack Russia. That is, the part of 'Russia' that was just recently the Baltic States. And from time to time repeat this process every few years. With the West becoming more and more discouraged with each defeat and Russia becoming bolder and bolder. It's not any more implausable than a thoroughly defeated 1918 Germany occupying France in 1940.
But, for now, the only danger is to a part of Ukraine. Or, perhaps, all of Ukraine, if we withhold our support.
-
In 1994, the United States pressured Ukraine to give up the Nuclear Weapons it got from the break up of the Soviet Union.
In exchange, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine. And the U. S. promised that Russia will never attack Ukraine.
The aid we give to Ukraine is a great deal for us. It wrecks a great power that has been a menace to World Peace for decades. Being the principle reason for all the billions we have spent each year for many decades. Now, for a fraction of our yearly expenditures on defense, we are getting that menaced wrecked. If we could do the same with China, if a similar amount of aid to Taiwan could wreck the threat of China, our military expenditures could be greatly reduced in the coming years.
But over and above the practical considerations, there is the moral consideration. The promises of the United States should mean something. We made a promise to Ukraine that we have been unable to fulfil. The least we can do, in exchange of reducing Nuclear Proliferation, which was and is so important to us, is give full support to Ukraine. Much more than we have given so far. Let's make good our promise, that if we can't prevent a Russia attack, at least give Ukraine the tools that will enable Russia to totally fail. So that we will have at least partially keep our promises.
-
In 1994, the United States pressured Ukraine to give up the Nuclear Weapons it got from the break up of the Soviet Union.
In exchange, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine. And the U. S. promised that Russia will never attack Ukraine.
Ukraine had nukes but they didn't have the launch codes. So the nukes were useless to them. Also, Ukraine voted to leave the USSR in 1991 so your first sentence is inaccurate.
As for Russia, they argue that the US didn't uphold its end of the deal because we expanded NATO up to Russia's doorstep after promises made to Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO.
The aid we give to Ukraine is a great deal for us.
It's a bad deal for Ukraine which was one of the poorest countries in Europe before the 2022 invasion and has lost millions of people since last year. It will take Ukraine decades to recover from this war. And the war was totally avoidable if less bellicose policies towards Russia were taken by the US and NATO.
Do you really care about Ukraine or are you suggesting that you support them being used as geopolitical pawns on a chessboard? Because that's the way it looks from my POV.
But over and above the practical considerations, there is the moral consideration. The promises of the United States should mean something.
Does that rationale apply to the promises the US made to Russia about not expanding NATO?
-
There is no doubt that "Europe" has made some token donations, but the US is providing the vast majority of military support. Hundreds of billions.
You can repeat a lie a thousand times, it will never become true. Get your facts straight and show us some actual evidence for the "hundreds of billions" that the US has provided.
You need to stop them there - right? Or they will overrun "Europe."
Stop making up stuff. Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO. But yes they need to be stopped in Ukraine, for two reasons;
No one is saying Russia will overrun "Europe"? HA HA HA. That has been a cornerstone of the entire leftist propaganda machine promoting the war. The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler. Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light. It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists. This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy. Putin became the proxy target. It would be humorous that a war has been fought on that basis if the consequences were not so tragic.
-
[a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/18/ukraine-russia-south-korea-00097563"]Politico: Ukraine could become a 'Frozen Conflict', U.S. officials say[/a]
U.S. officials are planning for the growing possibility that the Russia-Ukraine war will turn into a frozen conflict that lasts many years — perhaps decades — and joins the ranks of similar lengthy face-offs in the Korean peninsula, South Asia and beyond.
The options discussed within the Biden administration for a long-term “freeze” include where to set potential lines that Ukraine and Russia would agree not to cross, but which would not have to be official borders. The discussions — while provisional — have taken place across various U.S. agencies and in the White House.
It’s a scenario that may prove the most realistic long-term outcome given that neither Kyiv nor Moscow appear inclined to ever admit defeat. It’s also becoming increasingly likely amid the growing sense within the administration that an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive won’t deal a mortal blow to Russia.
A frozen conflict — in which fighting pauses but neither side is declared the victor nor do they agree that the war is officially over — also could be a politically palatable long-term result for the United States and other countries backing Ukraine.
It would mean the number of military clashes would fall, the costs of supporting Kyiv also likely would drop, and public attention to the war would wane.
“We are planning for the long term, whether it looks frozen or thawed,” said a U.S. official familiar with the Biden administration’s discussions on Ukraine. The official said such planning is a growing focus of the administration, whereas in past months “it was all about the urgent and short-term.”
Two other U.S. officials and a former Biden administration official confirmed that an extended freeze in fighting is one possibility for which the U.S. is preparing. U.S. officials also are thinking through the long-term security ties Washington will have with Kyiv, as well as Ukraine’s relationship with the NATO military alliance.
“There’s a school of thought that says, ‘Oh, the Ukrainians have to have [the city of] Mariupol and Azov Sea access.’ There’s others less hung up about the placement of the lines as long as Ukraine is secure going into the future,” the former administration official said, describing the internal conversations.
Such discussions remain in early stages, with the U.S. officials stressing that the war will remain hot for quite some time and that the Biden administration is intent on providing Ukraine with the weapons and support it needs to push the Russians out of as much territory as possible.
Realism may ultimately win afterall but not before thousands more Ukrainians and Russians are killed.
-
No one is saying Russia will overrun "Europe"? HA HA HA. That has been a cornerstone of the entire leftist propaganda machine promoting the war. The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler. Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light. It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists. This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy. Putin became the proxy target. It would be humorous that a war has been fought on that basis if the consequences were not so tragic.
The line was that if we don't stop them now, they will be emboldened to continue to invade other countries like Hitler.
First of all, I never mentioned Hitler. Secondly, invading other countries is not the same as overrunning Europe.
Shameless how the leftist story changes as the facts come to light.
Nobody is changing a story. You just misrepresent what was actually said, as per usual!~
It is truly unfortunate for the people of Ukraine that they were caught up in the obsessive anti-Trump hatred of American leftists.
Hilarious. What a load of BS
This all-in approach to the war which has resulted in countless deaths and destruction with no end in sight was merely an extension of the fake Russian collusion hoax and narrative that Trump was somehow an enemy of democracy.
Are you now idiotically claiming that the Russian invasion of Ukraine had something to the with the (not so fake) Russion collusion case?
And, Trump isn't "somehow" an enemy of democracy. He is the impitamy of an enemy of democracy.
-
President Biden never had to leave a NATO summit early because world leaders were laughing at him. Leaders around the world respect President Biden.
Criminal Donald was an absolute joke and world leaders were not shy about making that known. The only leaders Criminal Donald gushed over were murderous dictators like Putin and Kim Jung Un, who used Donnie for a fool to take advantage of his ignorance so they could advance their nefarious agenda.
Trump leaves NATO summit early after video shows leaders laughing at him
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2019/12/04/trump-to-leave-nato-summit-early-after-video-shows-leaders-laughing-at-him.html
-
Ukraine had nukes but they didn't have the launch codes. So the nukes were useless to them. Also, Ukraine voted to leave the USSR in 1991 so your first sentence is inaccurate.
If this was true, why was the United States and Russia so keen for Ukraine to give them up? Obviously, it would be much simpler for Ukraine to figure out how to make modifications to make these missiles operational than it would be to do this from scratch. If nothing else, they would have a mass of fissile material that can be used to make a nuclear bomb, a big first step. If nothing else, Russia wouldn’t know if Ukraine had nuclear capability and that alone might have stopped them from attempting to take Kiev, the first step in taking over all of Ukraine.
As for Russia, they argue that the US didn't uphold its end of the deal because we expanded NATO up to Russia's doorstep after promises made to Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO.
First of all, Russia is just pretending to be afraid of NATO attack. No matter how strong NATO gets, Russia can’t be attacked because if it’s nuclear deterrence. The Russians have a similar organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization. How much As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing do we do about countries joining the CSTO? None. Because we have no intention of taking them out one at a time.
Nations that want to expand always complain about other counties defensive agreements. Germany claimed that if Belgium entered into a defensive agreement with France, Germany would be threatened. Germany might have to attack Belgium to keep Germany safe. It was the lack of defensive agreement that helped France fall. The main attack came through the hills of forests of the Ardennes in southern Belgium. Belgium didn’t defend this region because they guessed that France might. France didn’t defend this region because they guessed that Belgium might. Something that could have been avoided if they coordinated their forces in case Belgium was attacked. So, the main panzer force was able to advance against almost no opposition until they were through the forest.
Secondly, the promise to never invade Ukraine was made on paper. The promise to not expand NATO was spoken. That is a big difference.
The promise not to expand NATO was made in 1990, when East Germany rejoined West Germany to form Germany. East of Germany was solidly controlled Soviet territory, Poland, the Baltic States. So, yes, it seemed to the U. S. negotiator that NATO would never expand to those areas. Moscow would never allow it.
In any case the notion that spoken agreements are just as binding as written agreements is nonsense. One miss-statement, at any point, during negotiations can allow a country to break its written promises. A nation can say “If you give me something now, I will always never invade you”. Then, after getting what they want, they can point to some miss-statement, or an alleged miss-statement, possibly made by someone, to go back on their written promise. That is why treaties are written down. So, everyone knows what is being agreed to.
Yes, if it was written down that NATO that in exchange for Russia’s promise not to invade, NATO would never expand, then NATO could not expand without breaking the treaty.
If spoken promises are binding, then written promises can always be broken by falsely claiming that spoken promises were made. Something that cannot be done with written agreements. Which, as I said before, is why treaties are written.
Question: Can spoken promises, or alleged spoken promises, justify the breaking of written treaties?
It's a bad deal for Ukraine which was one of the poorest countries in Europe before the 2022 invasion and has lost millions of people since last year. It will take Ukraine decades to recover from this war. And the war was totally avoidable if less bellicose policies towards Russia were taken by the US and NATO.
Ukraine has great agricultural production. And great iron and coal resources. I wonder why it is one of the poorest countries in Europe? I know. It’s because if hundred of years of autocratic Moscow rule. It is because during most of the past 30 years, Ukraine was been ruled by Moscow approved dictators. And whenever Ukraine tried to chose democracy, Russia attacks without fail. Ukraine has been poor for the same reason Russia has been relatively poor, despite a very well-educated population, despite great natural resources. Autocratic rule, under the czars, under the Soviets, under Putin, that always look for ways to enrich themselves, at the expense of the people of Russia and Ukraine.
Under Russia rule, losing millions of Ukrainians is nothing new. Under Russian misrule, millions of Ukrainians starved to death in the early 1930’s. Then, Russian misrule in 1939, caused Russia to make a deal with Hitler, allowing him to defeat France, which freed him up to attack the Soviet Union, resulting in millions of more Ukrainians being killed. At least now, the lose of “millions of Ukrainians” is to emigration, which I believe is temporary. But temporary or not, at least it is not millions of deaths.
And yes, I know, you can say that was Soviet rule. Soviet rule from Moscow. To me, it was Russian misrule. Just a different name.
If the Russians take over Ukraine, who’s to say future misrule won’t result in millions of deaths. If these future deaths were to occur, it would be due to the “mistakes” of Russian rulers. Considering the past, Ukraine is right to do whatever it takes to avoid this fate.
Do you really care about Ukraine or are you suggesting that you support them being used as geopolitical pawns on a chessboard? Because that's the way it looks from my POV.
From my point of view, you are a Russian apologist. Who prefers autocratic rule. Who cares nothing for democracy.
I’m not saying Ukraine must be forced to fight. Whether they want to or not. Because it helps us. But if Ukraine wants to fight, if they don’t want to be ruled by Moscow, if they don’t want the risk millions of Ukrainian lives being lost to the whims of Moscow as has happened in the past, then we should support them. But if Ukraine decides to throw in the towel, I will be the first to support their decision. But until them, we should support them.
It is you who cares nothing for Ukrainians. Who, it doesn’t matter the least bit what Ukrainians think or want. It doesn’t matter the least to you what Moscow has done to the Ukrainians in the past. And clearly Russia seems determine to stamp our Ukraine culture, stamp out the Ukrainian language. To you, it doesn’t matter in the least what Ukrainians want. We should stop aid to Ukraine regardless.
Question: Do you think we should stop military aid to Ukraine. Regardless of what Ukrainians think?
If so, how is it that I am the one who cares nothing about Ukrainians.
I suspect you won’t advocate stopping all Ukrainian military aid. Just as much as you can convince others to stop. And if you can someday convince others to stop all aid to Ukraine, that would be fine with you.
-
Question: Can spoken promises, or alleged spoken promises, justify the breaking of written treaties?
Yes. Agreements only stand if both sides honor them.
If we agree that on Tuesdays, I wash your car and on Fridays, you wash mine, that agreement ends when one of us or both us us stop upholding it.
Western leaders have long known that bringing Ukraine into NATO is a major non-starter for Russia but have promised future NATO membership to Ukraine anyway in spite of the fact that they knew it could lead to an aggressive response from Russia. So now Ukraine is suffering from the consequences of the stupid game of chicken.
From my point of view, you are a Russian apologist. Who prefers autocratic rule. Who cares nothing for democracy.
You couldn't be more wrong about me.
I believe in democracy and reject the idea that our leaders must do undemocratic or anti-liberal things to save our democracy.
Secondly, there's nothing worse democracy than war because war justifies government crackdowns on personal freedom and freedom of expression.
So I reject the idea that endless and unnecessary wars are good for democracy. The opposite is true.
The US has been at war for 90% of my lifetime and I don't think our democracy is better off for it. Things are only getting worse here.
I’m not saying Ukraine must be forced to fight. Whether they want to or not. Because it helps us.
I don't view Russia as a major national security problem for the US so I don't see why we have a dog in the fight between Russia and Ukraine.
There are areas of geopolitics where the US and Russia strongly disagree and there are other areas of geopolitics where the US and Russia can find common ground. But short of launching nuclear war, Russia isn't a threat to the US.
If there's anything we can do to help end the war as soon as possible, I support that but I reject the idea that Ukraine's fight is America's too.
Question: Do you think we should stop military aid to Ukraine. Regardless of what Ukrainians think?
Given that we're partially responsible for Ukraine being in this situation (ie the NATO issue and America's role in their 2014 coup), I don't think it's morally right to cut off aid to Ukraine.
But I don't think our aid to Ukraine can realistically be unconditional or without limitations.
Contrary to your accusations, I do have sympathy towards the plight of Ukrainians but I prefer a ceasefire as soon as possible, even if it means they don't regain all their territory, over a years long war where thousands more are killed and we end up with the same result, a stalemate...
-
It's not wasted money. Just like Hitler, Putin needs to be stopped. And sending weapons to Ukraine seems to be a very cost effective way to do it. Yes, it costs money to stop Putin. Just like it cost money to stop Hitler. But it needs to be done.
In the long run, Ukraine will be better off suffering the war damage, than living under the boot of Russia. There is no hope for them if that happens. And adding Ukraine to Russia will only give them more resources, more draftees, and make Russia an even bigger threat to Europe and the world.
And so far you have dodged my question.
Why did the recent reverses on the battlefield for Russia spur you to start complaining about our expenditures. You were pretty silent during the months of stalemate. Is it possible you are more concerned about Russia failing than our spending money?
The Hitler rationale that Martin from "Europe" denies anyone has used.
-
The Hitler rationale that Martin from "Europe" denies anyone has used.
Where did I say that?
Why do you need to lie every time you write something?
-
Where did I say that?
Why do you need to lie every time you write something?
LOL. Rabbit hole here we come. This thread is available for anyone to read.
-
LOL. Rabbit hole here we come. This thread is available for anyone to read.
Yes, so why waste their time by not pointing out where I said it?
Just the number of the message will do.... Go on then!
-
Yes, so why waste their time by not pointing out where I said it?
Just the number of the message will do.... Go on then!
Post #289 in this thread.
"Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO."
This is a blatant falsehood. You weren't speaking just for yourself. You said that "nobody" is saying Russia will overrun "Europe." That is a demonstrable lie. One of the primary arguments for supporting Ukraine in this war by leftists and right-wing war mongers is not to repeat the mistake of WWII by appeasing Hitler. A poster on this board has repeatedly made that claim. You know that are now running away again instead of apologizing for your dishonesty or ignorance of the facts.
-
The creeping escalation of force continues in Ukraine with Old Joe has now agreeing to send F-16s. This is a repeat of Vietnam. Incremental military escalation as the objective fails to be achieved. Eventually the decision will have to be made to send in American ground troops. As in Vietnam, and with the weapons systems already sent to Ukraine, the US government will deny that it plans to do so then it will send them in. A catastrophe that will play out for years absent dumb luck like Putin having a heart attack.
-
The creeping escalation of force continues in Ukraine with Old Joe now agreeing to send F-16s. This is a repeat of Vietnam. Incremental military escalation as the objective fails to be achieved. Eventually the decision will have to be made to send in American ground troops. As in Vietnam, and with the weapons systems already sent to Ukraine, the US government will deny that it plans to do so then it will send them in. A catastrophe that will play out for years absent dumb luck like Putin having a heart attack.
-
After a nine month battle, the Russians have captured the city of Bakhmut.
There is no final accounting of losses on either side. Prigozhin praised the Ukrainians defending the city. Bakhmut’s fall came after the most heavily defended part of the city, called the Citadel, fell to Wagner forces after fierce fighting and heavy bombardment by Russian artillery.
Almost all standing structures in Bakhmut have been damaged severely or destroyed completely. The Ukrainian army actually blew up a number of buildings as they retreated so Wagner forces could not use them for firing platforms. (See brief video here on Prigozhin’s announcement.)
It isn’t clear what next steps will be carried out by the Russian army. On the previous night, Russia carried out another large-scale bombing of Ukrainian targets and also claimed they shot down a number of HIMARS rockets and Storm Shadow cruise missiles.
Meanwhile, the Russians destroyed key bridges to Chasiv Yar, the town supplying Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut and on the Bakhmut flanks. It is possible Russian forces may go after Chasiv Yar as a staging point for a run to the Dnieper River. A lot depends on how the expected Ukrainian offensive develops.
While Ukrainian sources are claiming Bakhmut was unimportant, the long battle over nine months was ordered by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reportedly against the advice of his military commanders.
There are now unconfirmed rumors circulating on Telegram Messenger, where most of the Russian “mil” bloggers operate, that Ukraine’s top general, Valerii Zaluzhny, may be dead. He has not been seen or heard from for some days.
Also strange is that Zelensky himself would run off to the G-7 meeting in Hiroshima, Japan just as one of Ukraine’s most important battles concluded. There is a sense, no more than that, that there is substantial political turmoil in Kiev that could change the direction of the country and the war.
https://asiatimes.com/2023/05/bakhmut-has-finally-fallen-to-the-russians/
-
Post #289 in this thread.
"Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO."
This is a blatant falsehood. You weren't speaking just for yourself. You said that "nobody" is saying Russia will overrun "Europe." That is a demonstrable lie. One of the primary arguments for supporting Ukraine in this war by leftists and right-wing war mongers is not to repeat the mistake of WWII by appeasing Hitler. A poster on this board has repeatedly made that claim. You know that are now running away again instead of apologizing for your dishonesty or ignorance of the facts.
And where did I mention Hitler in post #289?
This is a blatant falsehood. You weren't speaking just for yourself.
Pathetic! Who else would I be speaking for?
You said that "nobody" is saying Russia will overrun "Europe." That is a demonstrable lie.
No. It's a figure of speech which expresses an opinion. That isn't lying.
It would only have been a lie if I had checked with everyone and knew for sure that some did in fact say that. Are you really foolish enough to actually think I had checked with every one?
Your desperation to turn an expressed opinion into a lie says everything we need (and want) to know about you.
-
The G7 leaders are united with Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Zelenskyy at center of last day of high-level diplomacy as G7 looks to punish Russia
https://thehill.com/policy/international/ap-ukraines-zelenskyy-at-center-of-last-day-of-high-level-diplomacy-as-g7-looks-to-punish-russia/
Zelensky Asks G7 Leaders for More Ukraine Aid
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/20/us/politics/zelensky-g7-japan.html
Biden announces new $375M military aid package for Ukraine during Zelensky meeting
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4014072-biden-announces-new-375m-military-aid-package-for-ukraine-during-zelensky-meeting/
Zelenskyy hints new Canadian aid package for Ukraine is coming soon
https://globalnews.ca/news/9714201/volodymyr-zelenskyy-canada-ukraine-aid/
Zelensky arrives at G7 summit as world leaders call out China - BBC News
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a scene-stealing arrival at the G7 summit in Japan on Saturday.
It came as world leaders issued a veiled warning to China against the use of what it called “economic coercion”.
His visit prompted G7 leaders to issue their statement early, in which they also condemned Russia.
Watch:
-
And where did I mention Hitler in post #289?
This is a blatant falsehood. You weren't speaking just for yourself.
Pathetic! Who else would I be speaking for?
You said that "nobody" is saying Russia will overrun "Europe." That is a demonstrable lie.
No. It's a figure of speech which expresses an opinion. That isn't lying.
It would only have been a lie if I had checked with everyone and knew for sure that some did in fact say that. Are you really foolish enough to actually think I had checked with every one?
Your desperation to turn an expressed opinion into a lie says everything we need (and want) to know about you.
Rabbit hole nonsense. Leftists and right wing war mongers have used Hitler and WWII as the primary example for why Putin needs to be confronted in Ukraine (i.e. the West should have confronted Hitler before WWII. Failure to do so resulted in Hitler overrunning "Europe:). That is a demonstrable fact. I provided an example from this very thread but it is also a widely expressed justification for this endless war. In response you said the following:
"Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO."
This statement is a blatant falsehood. In your defense you bizarrely argued that YOU had never made the claim that Russia would overrun "Europe." But your statement was that NOBODY had made this claim. Now that your lie has been exposed you are trying to move the goal posts yet again.
-
Rabbit hole nonsense. Leftists and right wing war mongers have used Hitler and WWII as the primary example for why Putin needs to be confronted in Ukraine (i.e. the West should have confronted Hitler before WWII. Failure to do so resulted in Hitler overrunning "Europe:). That is a demonstrable fact. I provide an example from this very thread but is a widely expressed justification for this endless war. In response you said the following:
"Nobody is saying that Russia will overrun Europe, because they won't. They don't have the guts or the means to take on NATO."
This statement is a blatant falsehood. In your defense you bizarrely argued that YOU had never made the claim that Russia would overrun "Europe." But your statement was that NOBODY had made this claim. Now that your lie has been exposed you are trying to move the goal posts yet again.
"Endless war".
Putin can end his war anytime he wants but refuses.
World leaders are not going to allow Puitin to take Ukraine.
-
"Endless war".
Putin can end his war anytime he wants but refuses.
World leaders are not going to allow Puitin to take Ukraine.
Finally some wisdom!!!! Putin can end this war. But who can't? Ukraine or Old Joe. So it is endless from the American perspective just as Vietnam and Afghanistan were endless and pointless. We can't force an end to it. Our adversaries control that decision. And what happens if the creeping pattern of escalation continues? Just like in Vietnam. Old Joe wasn't going to send in the missile systems. Then did. Old Joe wasn't going to send tanks. Then he did. Old Joe wasn't going to send F16s. Then he did. What happens when Zelensky demands NATO ground forces? We know how that goes from the long track record. The advisors will go in first. They are already there according to many media outlets. Then the NATO troops will slowly be sent in for support roles, then combat roles. The US will, as always, bear the brunt of that effott while "Europe" laughs at us.
-
It's refreshing to have a leader as President again instead of a Russian stooge like Donnie selling out America and our allies to Putin.
Biden tells G7 leaders he supports joint training for Ukrainians on F-16s
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-tells-7-leaders-supports-joint-training-ukrainians/story?id=99458369
-
Ukraine in unlikely to get F16s this year.
By this time next year, Americans will be focused on the 2024 election.
Big political gamble for Biden if the war worsens for Ukraine between now and then.
-
It's refreshing to have a leader as President again instead of a Russian stooge like Donnie selling out America and our allies to Putin.
Biden tells G7 leaders he supports joint training for Ukrainians on F-16s
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-tells-7-leaders-supports-joint-training-ukrainians/story?id=99458369
A cautionary tale. Old Joe has been resisting the provision of F16s. The creeping escalation suggests that everything is on the table for the war mongers going forward including US ground troops. Maybe that is the objective. A war with Russia. Right wing extremists have wanted that for decades, but they did not have the support of Dems. Now the obsessive hatred of Dems for Trump means everything is on the table. The ends justify any means. Even WWIII can't be ruled out if it harms Trumps chances in 2024. That is the level of insanity that we have reached in New America.
-
The only way to get Russia out of Ukraine is for NATO to threaten to start World War 3.
Ukraine alone can’t beat Russia. Anyone who says otherwise is gaslighting…
-
Never forget that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are all in with Putin.
Trump sides with Putin as Biden tries to stop a war
February 23, 2022
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/23/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-joe-biden/index.html
-
Never forget that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are all in with Putin.
Trump sides with Putin as Biden tries to stop a war
February 23, 2022
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/23/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-joe-biden/index.html
It's "Russian collusion" again! Yawn. Get some new material. That is embarrassing. Even a child could understand what has happened.
Obama = Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Trump = no invasion.
Old Joe - Russian invasion of Ukraine and endless war.
Use this information to reach a conclusion about who is "all in" with Putin. It is not even clear what that means. Putin respects strength. When he senses weak leaders like Old Joe he takes advantage. Trump played Putin to keep the peace. Magnificent. The people of Ukraine will curse Biden's name for centuries for the countless deaths and destruction that are taking place with no end in sight.
-
Hiroshima G7 marks costs of war and welcomes Ukraine's Zelensky
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-743694
-
You couldn't be more wrong about me.
I believe in democracy and reject the idea that our leaders must do undemocratic or anti-liberal things to save our democracy.
Then stop believing in Russia and start believing in Ukraine.
Contrary to your accusations, I do have sympathy towards the plight of Ukrainians but I prefer a ceasefire as soon as possible, even if it means they don't regain all their territory, over a years long war where thousands more are killed and we end up with the same result, a stalemate...
In think you fear that the war in Ukraine won't be a stalemate. I think you fear that Ukraine will win it's freedom.
* * * * *
Russia claims that the U. S. broke it’s promise not to expand NATO beyond Germany in its negotiations with Russia regarding Germany. These talks had nothing to do with Ukraine. The subsequent written treaty signed in 1990 did not address the expansion of NATO.
The verbal promise by the U. S. in 1990 seems common sense. East of Germany were all territories controlled by the Soviet Union. So, naturally, the U. S. did not think that NATO would expand into these areas.
In the modern world, spoken agreements mean nothing. Only written agreements count. This way, countries know, beyond a doubt, what they are agreeing to. And don’t discover, possibly because of some misstatement by a junior negotiator, that they “promised” something that they had no idea was promised when the treaty was signed.
But let’s ignore all that, and pretend that not expanding NATO was a deal that was promised in 1990, even though it was never written down and signed as part of the treaty.
Question: Why would a treaty between the U. S. and the Soviet Union in 1990, allow Russia to break its treaty with Ukraine in 1994?
In exchange for a promise to never be invaded by Russia, Ukraine gave its nuclear missiles to Russia. Even though the missiles, as is, could not be used to defend itself from Russia attack, the Ukrainians could have used the bomb itself, or at least the nuclear weapon itself, to construct a bomb it could use. If nothing else, if Ukraine was not able to figure out how to do this, the possession of these materials would likely have protected Ukraine from an all-out attack, like the one launched in 2022. Because Russia could not be certain of what Ukraine did possess.
Ukraine did not break any agreement with Russia.
Ukraine did not cause the expansion of NATO
Ukraine, under pressure from Russia, refused to attempt to join NATO.
Even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine still did not request to join NATO.
Question: So why should a false claim of the U. S. braking it’s 1990 treaty with Russia justify Russia breaking its agreement with Ukraine in 1994?
Question: If this is sufficient justification, why couldn’t Russia use Germany’s breaking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 in 1941 as a justification for breaking it’s 1994 treaty with Ukraine?
I think the lesson here is that there must not be a negotiated peace made with Russia in the current Ukraine war. Because it used the false claim of the U. S. breaking its treaty 1990 with the Soviet Union to justify its invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And the same justification for its renewed invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And, if we negotiated peace with Russia in 2023, Russia would use the same justification to invade Ukraine again in the future.
Negotiating with countries that break their word again and again, that invade countries again and again, after promising no more invasions after each previous invasion made successful with the latest agreement, is futile. After this pattern was followed enough times with Nazi Germany, the west stopped negotiating with Nazi Germany. Because it was clearly futile. The same is true with Russia today.
Question: If we do what others claim is only ‘sensible’ and negotiate a settlement where Russia gets to keep all it’s gains of 2014 and some of it’s gains from 2022, what’s to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine again based on the false claim that the U. S. broke the 1990 treaty?
Question: If we roll back NATO back to it’s 1990 boundaries, what is to prevent Russia from attacking Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine in the future? All areas that used to be occupied, and oppressed, by Russia in the past?
* * * * *
On a separate question, why should Ukraine join NATO?
In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear missiles in exchange for a written promise made in a treaty, from Russia, never to invade Ukraine.
Through 1994, despite the growing danger, Ukraine gave in to Russian threats and did not attempt to join NATO.
In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine, even though Ukraine never broke its agreement.
During 2014 through 2022, despite the now very clear danger, Ukraine gave in to Russian threats and did not attempt to join NATO.
In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine again, clearly trying to take its capital in a bid to control all of Ukraine.
So, guess what? Ukraine is done with backing down from Russian threats. Ukraine is done with relying on Russian promises. Ukraine is using the only option it has left. Force. And consistently, Ukraine is proving to be more valiant, more humane, more intelligent than the Russians. Clearly superior to the Russians in every way except in quantity, which has not prevented the Ukrainians from having much more success than the Russians in the last 12 months. Another advance like the ones the Ukrainians made in September of 2022 east of Kharkiv, could advance the Ukrainians to the Sea of Azov which would cut the Crimean Land Bridge. And this summer, unlike last, the Ukrainians have much more Western equipment, tanks, longer range missiles, and their best troops have received NATO training. We the new Russian recruits got a minimum of training from Belarus.
The Russians are really dug in? Better than the French were in 1940 with the Maginot Line in Sedan? We will see how well this works out.
-
Then stop believing in Russia and start believing in Ukraine.
In think you fear that the war in Ukraine won't be a stalemate. I think you fear that Ukraine will win it's freedom.
* * * * *
Are you claiming Jon is an agent of Putin as well? Otherwise, it's difficult to understand what you are implying here. Why do Americans need to "believe" in anyone else? Why don't we focus on our own interest for once? The US has been involved in some regional conflict around the world almost continuously for the last 60 years. Nothing good and plenty of bad has resulted from it. Only the military contractors ever benefitted. And the pattern here is increasingly dangerous. How many times has Old Joe drawn the line only to then provide the military aid. Missiles, tanks, and F16s. There is only one thing left to ask for. NATO ground troops made up of mostly Americans since "Europe" has checked on of the conflict. An incremental, creeping escalation. The Vietnam trap. Could a miracle happen and maybe Putin is removed from office or dies? Yes. But that would be blind luck and not a policy.
-
Are you claiming Jon is an agent of Putin as well? Otherwise, it's difficult to understand what you are implying here. Why do Americans need to "believe" in anyone else? Why don't we focus on our own interest for once? The US has been involved in some regional conflict around the world almost continuously for the last 60 years. Nothing good and plenty of bad has resulted from it. Only the military contractors ever benefitted. And the pattern here is increasingly dangerous. How many times has Old Joe drawn the line only to then provide the military aid. Missiles, tanks, and F16s. There is only one thing left to ask for. NATO ground troops made up of mostly Americans since "Europe" has checked on of the conflict. An incremental, creeping escalation. The Vietnam trap. Could a miracle happen and maybe Putin is removed from office or dies? Yes. But that would be blind luck and not a policy.
Why don't we focus on our own interest for once?
Hey, guess what... that's exactly what Hitler said.... Go figure
The US has been involved in some regional conflict around the world almost continuously for the last 60 years.
Let's not forget a few coup d'etats and all sorts of other sh''t. That's what happens when you want to be the world's police man.
Nothing good and plenty of bad has resulted from it. Only the military contractors ever benefitted.
Translation; bad decisions are always bad. Just like the "we love our guns" crap when children are dying in one mass shooting after another. It's a self-inficted wound. Deal with it.
There is only one thing left to ask for. NATO ground troops made up of mostly Americans since "Europe" has checked on of the conflict.
Ain't gonna happen.
Could a miracle happen and maybe Putin is removed from office or dies? Yes. But that would be blind luck and not a policy.
I was thinking along similar lines when it comes to Trump.
-
Then stop believing in Russia and start believing in Ukraine.
In think you fear that the war in Ukraine won't be a stalemate. I think you fear that Ukraine will win its freedom.
This war has already lasted longer than most modern wars and there’s no signs of it ending any time soon.
Neither side can score a knockout blow. Ukraine’s “Spring” counteroffensive is unlikely to begin before the summer (if it isn’t delayed til Fall).
Now that the war is at a stalemate, it’s a good time to start peace talks but unfortunately neither side is accepting that they can’t achieve their respective objectives via military force.
It’s fine to support Ukraine and want them to succeed at driving Russia out but the reality of the situation is that an outright Ukraine victory over Russia is unlikely…
-
You couldn't be more wrong about me.
I believe in democracy and reject the idea that our leaders must do undemocratic or anti-liberal things to save our democracy.
So you are a fellow believer in democracy.
So you believe America's founding fathers were correct to fight against the British. To achieve democracy. Even though they were fighting a 'forever war'. A war they could not possibly win. A war the British Empire was bound to win, sooner or later. Or so it was said. But we both believe in democracy so much, we agree that it was best not for the founding fathers to give into their fears and to fight tyranny.
And I imagine, that like me, you believe Churchill was right to not negotiate with Hitler. Why negotiate with someone who keeps attacking others, makes agreements that this will be the last attack. And then attack again. Even though this was clearly a 'forever' war. A war, that at best, Britain could never win and would just drag on year after year with Germany. And at worst, a war that Britain must eventually lose, to the larger country's powerful U-boat fleet or aircraft, or both, which could isolate Britain from imports, starving it.
So I am perplex that you, a 'fellow believer in democracy', don't support the war in Ukraine. That people who support democracy are not put off by the possibility that their fight is a doomed on. That at best, the war will go on indefinitely. Or, at worst, they are doomed.
Ukraine is not doomed. Russia has a long history of losing wars that, on paper, they should be able to crush easily. On paper, Russia should have won the Crimean war, with it's huge army. On paper, Russia should have won the war against Japan in 1904. On paper, Russia should have won the war against Poland at the end of World War I.
These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.
Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered. But a determined people have a good track record of beating tyranny, even when the odds seem hopeless. Even when one seems to be involved in a 'forever war'. Like America, during 1776 through 1780. Or Britain from June 1940 to May 1941. Tyranny never gives up. Keeps going indefinitely. Until, suddenly, it abruptly stops trying.
You believe in democracy? But not in this case because the odds are so clearly hopeless? Even though for a solid year now, the only one who have made significant gains are the Ukrainians?
True lovers of democracy applaud the efforts of others who fight tyranny. And will not withhold help because, 'It seems hopeless. This will go on indefinitely.' And have faith that democracy will prevail. And that tyranny will falter, and is never as strong as it seems.
Another push like the one the Ukrainians launched last September will see them reach the Sea of Azov. Isolating Crimea. And isolating areas lead to the doom of those areas. Think Stalingrad. Will that cause Russia to give up on it's clown show? I think it might. But I am confident that if Ukraine remains steadfast, if others continue to support it, Russia will give up. Because that is the pattern of history. History doesn't repeat itself but it does tend to rhyme.
You hate all the wars we have been involved in? So do I. But in how many of these wars were we supporting a people who wanted democracy. South Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? No, no and no. But here, for the first time in my lifetime, we are supporting a people who support democracy. And we are willing to fight against the odds. This is not the time I want American to stop supporting an ally. This is the one time I want America to help another wage a war.
Give up the fight in Iraq? I am with you. But giving up on the fight in Ukraine? No.
But the way, you have taken a strong stand against Ukraine.
Question: Can you site posts you have made against the war (while it was being fought) in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? And made as many posts on those wars as you have on the one in Ukraine? Or is arguing against America being involved in wars just started in earnest with the war in Ukraine?
-
So you are a fellow believer in democracy.
So you believe America's founding fathers were correct to fight against the British. To achieve democracy. Even though they were fighting a 'forever war'. A war they could not possibly win. A war the British Empire was bound to win, sooner or later. Or so it was said. But we both believe in democracy so much, we agree that it was best not for the founding fathers to give into their fears and to fight tyranny.
And I imagine, that like me, you believe Churchill was right to not negotiate with Hitler. Why negotiate with someone who keeps attacking others, makes agreements that this will be the last attack. And then attack again. Even though this was clearly a 'forever' war. A war, that at best, Britain could never win and would just drag on year after year with Germany. And at worst, a war that Britain must eventually lose, to the larger country's powerful U-boat fleet or aircraft, or both, which could isolate Britain from imports, starving it.
See, this is the reason why we're not aligned. I simply don't view this war the way you do. I compare it to other conflicts.
To me, the Russia-Ukraine war isn't comparable to our Revolution or World War II. Rather, this war is comparable to the Mexican-American war.
The Mexican-American war began as a fight over Texas, which was part of Mexico at the time when pro-American separatists in Texas began rebelling against the Mexican government. The US used the tragedy at the Alamo to justify invading Mexico and the outcome of the war was we gained Texas and other States that make up the American Southwest.
In Ukraine beginning in 2014, pro-Russian separatists rebelled against the Ukrainian government. Between 2014 and 2022, Ukraine was at war with their separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. Russia used the plight of the seperatists and ethnic Russians in Ukraine to justify invading Ukraine and taking more of their territory.
And ultimately, this war may end with Russia controlling more Ukrainian territory than they did before 2022.
So that's the way I view this war. More about regional issues than "democracy" or "freedom".
Truthfully, Ukraine isn't a free country. Military age men cannot even legally leave Ukraine without permission. Opposition political parties have been banned. Churches that associate with Russia have been banned.
Before the war, Ukraine was one of the world's most corrupt countries.
So I take issue with the idea that Ukraine is "defending democracy" or the idealistic view of this war. I have more nuanced views of Ukraine and Russia. Neither country is perfect. Both are extremely flawed. Ukraine I think is Freer than Russia but not as democratic or pluralistic as I think a real democracy should be.
Ukraine is not doomed. Russia has a long history of losing wars that, on paper, they should be able to crush easily. On paper, Russia should have won the Crimean war, with it's huge army. On paper, Russia should have won the war against Japan in 1904. On paper, Russia should have won the war against Poland at the end of World War I.
On paper, Russia should be able to win a war of attrition against Ukraine. Russia has three times more people than Ukraine and they're self-sufficient when it comes to military supplies.
When Ukraine needs more military ammo or equipment, they have to wait for other countries to supply them. When Russia needs more, they can just manufacture more.
So Russia has huge advantages over Ukraine and as you say, on paper, SHOULD be able to outlast Ukraine in this war.
If Russia is forced to withdraw from Ukraine, it will be due to their own internal problems, not due to Ukraine driving them out. It's just not realistic to assume that Ukraine alone can militarily defeat Russia.
So rather than keep escalating and sending more and more aid to Ukraine, I think we should keep the door open to peace talks if opportunities to get both sides to the negotiating table surface.
You believe in democracy? But not in this case because the odds are so clearly hopeless? Even though for a solid year now, the only one who have made significant gains are the Ukrainians?
I don't believe democracy or freedom come at the barrel of a gun. I have said multiple times here that wars typically coincide with a lack of individual freedom.
And even using our own example, only White male landowners were Free at the time of our Revolution. So can we really claim to have been a real democracy when our nation was founded?
Maybe over time, Ukraine will become more free and democratic but they're not really a democracy today and I don't believe this war is about democracy vs tyranny.
-
The US believes Ukraine is responsible for the drone attack on the Kremlin
Ukrainians Were Likely Behind Kremlin Drone Attack, U.S. Officials Say
U.S. officials said the drone attack on the Kremlin earlier this month was likely orchestrated by one of Ukraine’s special military or intelligence units, the latest in a series of covert actions against Russian targets that have unnerved the Biden administration.
U.S. intelligence agencies do not know which unit carried out the attack and it was unclear whether President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top officials were aware of the operation, though some officials believe Mr. Zelensky was not.
The agencies reached their preliminary assessment in part through intercepted communications in which Russian officials blamed Ukraine and other communications in which Ukrainian officials said they believed their country was responsible for the attack, in which two drones were flown on May 3 toward the Kremlin, causing little damage.
U.S. officials say their level of confidence that the Ukrainian government directly authorized the Kremlin drone attack is “low” but that is because intelligence agencies do not yet have specific evidence identifying which government officials, Ukrainian units or operatives were involved.
The attack appeared to be part of a series of operations that have made officials in the United States — Ukraine’s biggest supplier of military equipment — uncomfortable. The Biden administration is concerned about the risk that Russia will blame U.S. officials and retaliate by expanding the war beyond Ukraine.
American spy agencies see an emerging picture of a loose confederation of Ukrainian units able to conduct limited operations inside and outside Russia, either by using their own personnel or partners working under their direction. Some of these missions could have been conducted with little, if any, oversight from Mr. Zelensky, officials said.
In addition to the drone attack, U.S. officials say they believe the Ukrainians were responsible for the assassination of the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist, the killing of a pro-Russian blogger and a number of attacks in Russian towns near the border with Ukraine, the most recent of which occurred Monday.
American officials similarly view the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines — which carried natural gas from Russia to Europe — as the work of pro-Ukrainian operatives whose ties to the Ukrainian government have yet to be determined.
http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6966743&u=https%3A//www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/ukraine-kremlin-drone-attack.html
Either President Zelensky is unaware of what his intelligence operations guys are doing when he says "Ukraine isn't involved with the attacks inside Russia", or the US is giving him plausible deniability by claiming that he wasn't involved.
-
There is only one thing left to ask for. NATO ground troops made up of mostly Americans since "Europe" has checked on of the conflict.
Ain't gonna happen.
Remember when we were told that tanks were not going to be sent? Then they were. Remember when we were told missiles were not going to be sent? Then they were. Remember when Biden told us F16s were not going to be sent? Then they were. But don't worry. Some guy from "Europe" knows that Ukraine Joe will not send in the troops. Just trust him like Americans trusted LBJ in Vietnam. American "advisors" are already in Ukraine. Remember when "advisors" were sent to Vietnam? Then they need some troops to provide logistical roles. Then they needed some combat troops. Then they need thousands, and then tens of thousands....we have all seen this movie before. Again, maybe we get lucky here and Putin is forced to stand down. But that decision is entirely with Russia. The US and Ukraine cannot force a resolution.
-
Remember when we were told that tanks were not going to be sent? Then they were. Remember when we were told missiles were not going to be sent? Then they were. Remember when Biden told us F16s were not going to be sent? Then they were. But don't worry. Some guy from "Europe" knows that Ukraine Joe will not send in the troops. Just trust him like Americans trusted LBJ in Vietnam. American "advisors" are already in Ukraine. Remember when "advisors" were sent to Vietnam? Then they need some troops to provide logistical roles. Then they needed some combat troops. Then they need thousands, and then tens of thousands....we have all seen this movie before. Again, maybe we get lucky here and Putin is forced to stand down. But that decision is entirely with Russia. The US and Ukraine cannot force a resolution.
Some guy from "Europe" knows that Ukraine Joe will not send in the troops.
No, some guy from Europe doesn't know that. He just understands that sending in US troops will be an escalation of the war that nobody wants.
But some guy hiding behind an alias on an internet forum actually thinks he knows exactly what will happen. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Ukraine set to get F-16 fighter jets; Russian mercenaries pull out of Bakhmut
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/25/ukraine-war-live-updates-latest-news-on-russia-and-the-war-in-ukraine.html
-
Some guy from "Europe" knows that Ukraine Joe will not send in the troops.
No, some guy from Europe doesn't know that. He just understands that sending in US troops will be an escalation of the war that nobody wants.
But some guy hiding behind an alias on an internet forum actually thinks he knows exactly what will happen. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
The escalation has already happened. Old Joe said he would not send missiles, tanks, and F16s to Ukraine. Then he did. The creeping escalation is already well advanced. The pattern is taken directly from Vietnam. Do you think the war hawks will allow Ukraine to be overrun by Russia without pressuring Biden to send in NATO if this war goes on and on and Russia gets the upper hand?
-
The escalation has already happened. Old Joe said he would not send missiles, tanks, and F16s to Ukraine. Then he did. The creeping escalation is already well advanced. The pattern is taken directly from Vietnam. Do you think the war hawks will allow Ukraine to be overrun by Russia without pressuring Biden to send in NATO if this war goes on and on and Russia gets the upper hand?
Old Joe said he would not send missiles, tanks, and F16s to Ukraine.
Circumstances change. And Biden isn't the only one sending those weapons. Germany is sending tanks. England is sending missiles. Poland and the Dutch are sending F16s....
The Ukraine offensive has started. Drones blew up a Russian ship in the black sea. The Wagner group is leaving Putin to his own devices. If Russia could overrun Ukraine they would have already done so. Instead, Putin is now so worried that he is sending nuclear weapons to Bellarus. Not that it matters much because the Russians had nukes near the border everywhere for a long time and Putin will never be so stupid to push the red button as it would mean self destruction.
-
Old Joe said he would not send missiles, tanks, and F16s to Ukraine.
Circumstances change. And Biden isn't the only one sending those weapons. Germany is sending tanks. England is sending missiles. Poland and the Dutch are sending F16s....
The Ukraine offensive has started. Drones blew up a Russian ship in the black sea. The Wagner group is leaving Putin to his own devices. If Russia could overrun Ukraine they would have already done so. Instead, Putin is now so worried that he is sending nuclear weapons to Bellarus. Not that it matters much because the Russians had nukes near the border everywhere for a long time and Putin will never be so stupid to push the red button as it would mean self destruction.
LOL. That's right! You are finally learning. No one who ever read this board could have predicted it but you are making progress. Now if "circumstances" changed in the past to justify (in Ukraine Joe's opinion) this escalation then "circumstances" may change again to justify sending in NATO troops (i.e. 99% American)! See how this works? As a result, we can't rule out the intervention of NATO ground troops as you stupidly claimed. Particularly if Old Joe is reelected in 2024 and is a lame duck president. The sky is the limit then. He is answerable to no one. Endless war.
-
LOL. That's right! You are finally learning. No one who ever read this board could have predicted it but you are making progress. Now if "circumstances" changed in the past to justify (in Ukraine Joe's opinion) this escalation then "circumstances" may change again to justify sending in NATO troops (i.e. 99% American)! See how this works? As a result, we can't rule out the intervention of NATO ground troops as you stupidly claimed. Particularly if Old Joe is reelected in 2024 and is a lame duck president. The sky is the limit then. He is answerable to no one. Endless war.
Putting NATO boots on the ground escalates the war into a direct NATO vs Russia confrontation that both sides don't want. The only possible objective of such an escalation would be the total destruction of Russia. The stakes would be way too high for the entire planet. It isn't going to happen.
-
Zelensky lauds Americans ‘defending the freedom’ in Memorial Day message
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4025259-zelensky-lauds-americans-defending-the-freedom-in-memorial-day-message/
-
For the month of June, I would like to propose a toast.
"To the Sea of Azov".
-
Zelensky lauds Americans ‘defending the freedom’ in Memorial Day message
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4025259-zelensky-lauds-americans-defending-the-freedom-in-memorial-day-message/
Growing up in Virginia, I was taught about the role the French played in the American Revolution. America to this day has never forgotten. I hope that in the coming generations, Ukrainians will be taught about the role of America in the liberation of Ukraine. I believe it will happen.
-
Ukraine's army has been called "The MacGyver army of armies". For their ability to combine different technologies to come up with innovated solutions to military problems. To combine commercial drones with other technology to wage war in new ways. And they took to using HIMARS with amazing speed. But to me, what is their greatest technical achievement is using Patriot missiles to shoot down Russia's hypersonic missiles. Missiles that Russia has claimed were unstoppable. Missiles that our experts have been quoted on saying, that they didn't think the Patriot missile system could intercept. How could the Ukrainians figure out a way to use Patriot missiles to intercept hypersonic missiles, that our experts didn't think could be done, is beyond me. Amazing.
And now the Russians have arrested the Russian scientists who developed the Hypersonic missiles for Russia. So now we know who to blame for Russia's problems on the battlefield. Russian corruption is not to blame. It's not the decades of Russian corruption. Led by the few who steal billions from the Russian people, and from the Russian military. Who own luxurious mansions and yachts. Led by the fattest fat cat of them all, Putin. And who inspire everyone down the line to steal from the military, down to the lowest private to strip tanks of copper and sell diesel fuel for vodka. No, it is the fault of the Russian scientists. I love it.
-
Growing up in Virginia, I was taught about the role the French played in the American Revolution. America to this day has never forgotten. I hope that in the coming generations, Ukrainians will be taught about the role of America in the liberation of Ukraine. I believe it will happen.
The same way they are taught in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to be grateful to America? I'm sure they love us there since we did so much good. The people of Ukraine who are dying and whose cities are being destroyed in a regional conflict in which most couldn't care less about whether they are governed by Russians or Ukranians, and many of whom are ethnic Russians, will curse Biden for centuries.
-
The same way they are taught in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to be grateful to America? I'm sure they love us there since we did so much good. The people of Ukraine who are dying and whose cities are being destroyed in a regional conflict in which most couldn't care less about whether they are governed by Russians or Ukranians, and many of whom are ethnic Russians, will curse Biden for centuries.
Always negative and boring. What a lovely person... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
It's not wasted money. Just like Hitler, Putin needs to be stopped. And sending weapons to Ukraine seems to be a very cost effective way to do it. Yes, it costs money to stop Putin. Just like it cost money to stop Hitler. But it needs to be done.
In the long run, Ukraine will be better off suffering the war damage, than living under the boot of Russia. There is no hope for them if that happens. And adding Ukraine to Russia will only give them more resources, more draftees, and make Russia an even bigger threat to Europe and the world.
And so far you have dodged my question.
Why did the recent reverses on the battlefield for Russia spur you to start complaining about our expenditures. You were pretty silent during the months of stalemate. Is it possible you are more concerned about Russia failing than our spending money?
Why would it be so unbearable for ethnic Russians to live under Russia? Again, this is a regional conflict in which many of those who live in that area are RUSSIANS. They have been fighting to return to Russia for years before this war. And again with the Hitler comparison that Martin said "nobody" had ever made? That is US propaganda. Just like weapons of mass destruction. If the Russians can't even overrun a few regions of Ukraine, they pose no Hitler-like threat to "Europe." The "Europeans" apparently don't feel threatened since they have checked out of this conflict. As with every other conflict in the last 70 years, the US is bearing the cost. And just wait until Zelensky asks for ground troops. That is coming after the 2024 election if Biden wins. Bank on it. Like the tanks, fighter jets, and missiles, the pattern of creeping escalation always ends at the same place with Americans doing the fighting. Is it possible that fate intervenes and maybe Putin dies or falls out of power? Sure. But that would be pure dumb luck and not the result of any US policy. This war will go on and on and on for as long as the Russians want to fight it. A losing scenario for the US that has been repeated over and over since Vietnam. Biden has made the same mistake as LBJ. He has gotten himself involved in a war with no clear way to end it.
-
Growing up in Virginia, I was taught about the role the French played in the American Revolution.
America didn't return the favor to France when they had their revolution. At the time, the US wasn't an empire and there was no desire to get involved with other countries' problems. We need to get back to that because empires are difficult to maintain. Overextending themselves by getting involved with too many foreign conflicts usually leads to the decline of empires...
-
Zelensky salutes ‘powerful support’ from allies at Moldova summit – as he increases pressure over jets
Ukrainian president says it is vitally important to overturn Russian air supremacy with F-16s and Patriot missile defences
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-zelensky-moldova-jets-b2349911.html
-
The same way they are taught in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to be grateful to America? I'm sure they love us there since we did so much good. The people of Ukraine who are dying and whose cities are being destroyed in a regional conflict in which most couldn't care less about whether they are governed by Russians or Ukranians, and many of whom are ethnic Russians, will curse Biden for centuries.
We weren't defending a democracy in Vietnam, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq. For the first time in my life, we are supporting a democracy. So this is that one time, the one time, I don't want to withhold our support.
The Ukrainians don't support the war? Then why did so many escort their families over the border, when the war started, then turned around and returned to fight for Ukraine. Why is a much smaller country than Russia, able to get as many men to join the fight as Russia gets. And Russia is forced to use convicts and mercenaries to get somewhere near equal numbers.
Back in the 1990's, every province of Ukraine was given a chance to vote to stay in Russia or join Ukraine. And every province, including Crimea, voted to join Ukraine. Every one/
Most Ukrainian Russian speakers don't want to join Russia. Some do, but most don't. And those who do are free to move to Russia after the war if they want to. So everyone can be accomendated. Something that won't happen if Russia gets it's way, take over all of Ukraine. If it can't accomplish this year, or this decade, it will take what it can get now and go get the rest later.
When western reporters interview Russia speaking Ukrainians and refer to them as "Russian Ukrainians", the Ukrainians usually interrupt them, and inform them that they are not "Russian Ukrainians" but are "Ukrainians who speak Russian". And are "Ukrainians who support Ukraine and do not wish to go back to being Russians".
Sure, some Russian speaking Ukrainians do want Russia to win. But most do not. And yet, you pretend that all Russian speaking Ukrainians want Russia to win.
I marginally supported the war against Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan used and sheltered those who attacked us. And I have always been against the war in Iraq. And would support leaving Iraq tomorrow, assuming this doesn't endanger the Democrats in the 2024 elections. But the one war I want to see supported is the one in Ukraine. Let's not make the one war we drop out of the one that supports a democracy.
-
We weren't defending a democracy in Vietnam, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq. For the first time in my life, we are supporting a democracy. So this is that one time, the one time, I don't want to withhold our support.
Was the US “supporting” Ukraine’s democracy when we overthrew their President in February 2014? He was democratically elected but overthrown by the transitional government which was handpicked by US diplomats.
To the rest of the world, “democracy promotion” by the US usually means the CIA and their affiliated organizations meddling in the elections of other democracies. Including democratic countries like Canada and Brazil.
As for Ukraine, they’re barely a democracy today. Zelensky has outlawed opposition parties, shut down churches, jailed political opponents, and jailed pretty much anyone in Ukraine who is suspected of being a traitor.
So the Ukraine you speak of is an aspirational ideal maybe but not their current reality or even the reality of Ukraine before Putin’s invasion.
Our involvement with Ukraine, which began over a decade ago if not earlier, is about post-Cold War politics between the US and Russia, not democracy. This conflict is about great power politics in the 21st century.
-
Ukraine war: Teens used to report Russian propaganda
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65675102
-
We weren't defending a democracy in Vietnam, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq. For the first time in my life, we are supporting a democracy. So this is that one time, the one time, I don't want to withhold our support.
The Ukrainians don't support the war? Then why did so many escort their families over the border, when the war started, then turned around and returned to fight for Ukraine. Why is a much smaller country than Russia, able to get as many men to join the fight as Russia gets. And Russia is forced to use convicts and mercenaries to get somewhere near equal numbers.
Back in the 1990's, every province of Ukraine was given a chance to vote to stay in Russia or join Ukraine. And every province, including Crimea, voted to join Ukraine. Every one/
Most Ukrainian Russian speakers don't want to join Russia. Some do, but most don't. And those who do are free to move to Russia after the war if they want to. So everyone can be accomendated. Something that won't happen if Russia gets it's way, take over all of Ukraine. If it can't accomplish this year, or this decade, it will take what it can get now and go get the rest later.
When western reporters interview Russia speaking Ukrainians and refer to them as "Russian Ukrainians", the Ukrainians usually interrupt them, and inform them that they are not "Russian Ukrainians" but are "Ukrainians who speak Russian". And are "Ukrainians who support Ukraine and do not wish to go back to being Russians".
Sure, some Russian speaking Ukrainians do want Russia to win. But most do not. And yet, you pretend that all Russian speaking Ukrainians want Russia to win.
I marginally supported the war against Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan used and sheltered those who attacked us. And I have always been against the war in Iraq. And would support leaving Iraq tomorrow, assuming this doesn't endanger the Democrats in the 2024 elections. But the one war I want to see supported is the one in Ukraine. Let's not make the one war we drop out of the one that supports a democracy.
It's incorrect to claim we were not supporting "democracy" in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. That was the whole narrative. We were saving Vietnam from the Commies. We were liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from dictators and terrorists. Remember all the propaganda when Afghans voted and had those blue marks on their fingers? No one is "pretending" that all Russian speaking Ukranians want Russia to win. Many likely prefer it to the total destruction of their homes and deaths of their families. These wars are pointless and costly. Nothing good ever comes of it. There is no way for the US to force an end. It will go on for as long as the Russians wish to continue it.
-
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ‘strategic failure’, says US Secretary of State - BBC News
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been described as a “strategic failure” by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
During an address in Finland, which is Nato's newest member, Blinken also said the invasion had weakened Russia diplomatically, economically and militarily.
Watch:
-
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ‘strategic failure’, says US Secretary of State - BBC News
A failure for who?
The US, which armed Ukraine and sanctioned Russia (after the Crimea annexation) in order to deter Putin's aggression?
Or Putin, who probably didn't expect the war to last more than a few weeks?
At the end of the day, the biggest losers in this war are the Ukrainians...
-
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ‘strategic failure’, says US Secretary of State - BBC News
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been described as a “strategic failure” by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
During an address in Finland, which is Nato's newest member, Blinken also said the invasion had weakened Russia diplomatically, economically and militarily.
What else is he going to say? That he and Biden made a terrible mistake and have no clue what to do? They are at the mercy of Putin to determine how long the war continues and have no plan or policy other than to wait it out? Putin must pinch himself when he sees the weak Biden clown show. Old Joe falling and rolling around on the ground. The Russians must laugh themselves silly.
-
A failure for who?
The US, which armed Ukraine and sanctioned Russia (after the Crimea annexation) in order to deter Putin's aggression?
Or Putin, who probably didn't expect the war to last more than a few weeks?
At the end of the day, the biggest losers in this war are the Ukrainians...
At the end of the day, the biggest losers in this war are the Ukrainians...
Agreed. Which is exactly why they have to get all the help the need.
-
At the end of the day, the biggest losers in this war are the Ukrainians...
Agreed. Which is exactly why they have to get all the help the need.
Too bad then that "Europe" has checked out. The kind of "help" Ukraine needs is a path to end the war. Not continue it indefinitely with no clear plan or policy.
-
What else is he going to say? That he and Biden made a terrible mistake and have no clue what to do? They are at the mercy of Putin to determine how long the war continues and have no plan or policy other than to wait it out? Putin must pinch himself when he sees the weak Biden clown show. Old Joe falling and rolling around on the ground. The Russians must laugh themselves silly.
Putin hiding in secret locations, not travelling on planes and moving around in trains is pretty comical. That's one hell of a "world leader".
That he and Biden made a terrible mistake
What mistake would that be?
They are at the mercy of Putin to determine how long the war continues
You may have a point there. It still might take a while or a few more drone attacks, to make him see he's at a dead end with no way to win this war.
He's getting more desperate by the day.
-
Too bad then that "Europe" has checked out. The kind of "help" Ukraine needs is a path to end the war. Not continue it indefinitely with no clear plan or policy.
You really need to stop this misinformation BS. Europe is backing Ukraine all the way. Ukraine is in no position to end the war, or would you have them march on Moscow?
Ukraine will have won this war by kicking Putin out of their country and that will subsequently be the end of Putin as well.
You just want them to surrender to Russia (regardless of the consequences) so that the US can save a few dollars. It's sick and pathetic.
-
You really need to stop this misinformation BS. Europe is backing Ukraine all the way. Ukraine is in no position to end the war, or would you have them march on Moscow?
Ukraine will have won this war by kicking Putin out of their country and that will subsequently be the end of Putin as well.
You just want them to surrender to Russia (regardless of the consequences) so that the US can save a few dollars. It's sick and pathetic.
Martin has learned something! I couldn't say it better. Ukraine has no ability to end the war. There is no policy or plan that the US and Ukraine force a victory over the enemy as we did in WWII. It is exactly the situation presented in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Just fight on and on and on hoping that one day the enemy tires and calls it off. That is not a strategy. Do you think the people in the disputed regions, many of whom are ethnic Russians, would prefer to die and have their homes destroyed vs a settlement with Russia that ended the war? How do you know what they prefer? The fighting in these regions preceded the invasion. It is a regional conflict that has gone on for years and will continue for years. How long does the US bankroll this war? Five years? Ten? Twenty? What is the end point?
-
Martin has learned something! I couldn't say it better. Ukraine has no ability to end the war. There is no policy or plan that the US and Ukraine force a victory over the enemy as we did in WWII. It is exactly the situation presented in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Just fight on and on and on hoping that one day the enemy tires and calls it off. That is not a strategy. Do you think the people in the disputed regions, many of whom are ethnic Russians, would prefer to die and have their homes destroyed vs a settlement with Russia that ended the war? How do you know what they prefer? The fighting in these regions preceded the invasion. It is a regional conflict that has gone on for years and will continue for years. How long does the US bankroll this war? Five years? Ten? Twenty? What is the end point?
Ukraine has no ability to end the war.
Not what I said.
The fighting in these regions preceded the invasion.
Actually, the desperate need of Russia to hang on to a major harbor for their Southern fleet and their invasion of Crimea combined with the lack of any substantive response from the West preceded the invasion.
It is a regional conflict that has gone on for years and will continue for years. How long does the US bankroll this war?
First of all, they only bankroll part of it and secondly, would you rather they leave the people of Ukraine (who did not want or start this war) to their own devices, with most likely many thousands of them dying to save a few dollars? Compared with what the US spends on their military every year, what they give Ukraine is an insignificant amount, but you would still rather have people die for the sake of not spending that money. Is that really who you are?
-
Ukraine says it downed 36 Russian missiles and drones
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/air-raid-alerts-declared-across-all-ukraine-kyiv-reports-attacks-2023-06-02/
-
At the end of the day, the biggest losers in this war are the Ukrainians...
Agreed. Which is exactly why they have to get all the help the need.
The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.
If a year from now, Russia still occupies 1/5 of Ukraine, what should Ukraine’s backers like the US do? Double-down, escalate, or de-escalate?
-
The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.
If a year from now, Russia still occupies 1/5 of Ukraine, what should Ukraine’s backers like the US do? Double-down, escalate, or de-escalate?
The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.
When they force the Russians out of their country, they'll have won the war. With all the new equipment they have been getting and the desperate state of the Russia army it is most certainly possible to send Putin packing.
If a year from now, Russia still occupies 1/5 of Ukraine, what should Ukraine’s backers like the US do? Double-down, escalate, or de-escalate?
Russia won't occupy 1/5 of Ukraine, but just in case they somehow manage to do so, what would you prefer Ukraine's backers do; continue to support their efforts or withdraw all funding and leave Ukraine to it's own devices so that Putin can kill even more civilians than he has already done?
You seem to be arguing that Ukraine should just give up a part of their country and award Putin for his aggression and many war crimes. Do you think rewarding aggressors is a good thing?
-
The problem remains that it’s still unlikely that Ukraine wins the war despite all the help they’ve been given.
When they force the Russians out of their country, they'll have won the war. With all the new equipment they have been getting and the desperate state of the Russia army it is most certainly possible to send Putin packing.
That is magical thinking. Even the commander of NATO disagrees with the assumption that Russia’s military has been crippled by the war. He testified to the US congress recently that Russia’s military is larger now than before the 2022 invasion. Russian forces are dug-in for a long occupation of Ukraine.
We can hope for Ukraine to win but the question remains, how much time do they have before their backers need to change course? I don’t think it’s realistic to assume that a stalemate would be tolerated long-term.
You seem to be arguing that Ukraine should just give up a part of their country and award Putin for his aggression and many war crimes. Do you think rewarding aggressors is a good thing?
The consequences of every war include potentially losing one’s territory. Why should Ukraine be exempt from the laws of war? “Might makes right”
If you disagree, should the US give up parts of our territory that was taken by force? Potentially, Russia could also lose territory in this war as Ukraine is increasing their cross-border attacks on Russia.
I don’t see Russia being forced out of Ukraine without direct intervention from NATO countries.
-
That is magical thinking. Even the commander of NATO disagrees with the assumption that Russia’s military has been crippled by the war. He testified to the US congress recently that Russia’s military is larger now than before the 2022 invasion. Russian forces are dug-in for a long occupation of Ukraine.
We can hope for Ukraine to win but the question remains, how much time do they have before their backers need to change course? I don’t think it’s realistic to assume that a stalemate would be tolerated long-term.
The consequences of every war include potentially losing one’s territory. Why should Ukraine be exempt from the laws of war? “Might makes right”
If you disagree, should the US give up parts of our territory that was taken by force? Potentially, Russia could also lose territory in this war as Ukraine is increasing their cross-border attacks on Russia.
I don’t see Russia being forced out of Ukraine without direct intervention from NATO countries.
So, you are indeed arguing that Ukraine should surrender part of it's country and thus award aggression and war crimes, which could be an inspiration for other dictators to play the same game. Wow!
Even the commander of NATO disagrees
He can disagree all he wants but the facts are that all we see from Russia is drones and missisle attacks, a withdrawl from ground troops in key locations, officers complaining about not getting enough supplies and the Wagner group pulling out all together.
-
So, you are indeed arguing that Ukraine should surrender part of it's country and thus award aggression and war crimes, which could be an inspiration for other dictators to play the same game. Wow!
Let's unpack what you're saying.
Since invading Ukraine:
- Russia has become a complete pariah state
- Russia is now the most sanctioned country in the world
- Russia has lost somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000 troops (depending on which estimates you believe) in just over a year of war
- $500 million in Russian assets remain frozen in Western banks
- Russia is forced to sell their oil at a huge discount to India and China to make up for the loss of the European market
In return, Russia has gained a slither of territory in Ukraine that will be uninhabitable for at least a decade if not longer.
It has worked out so poorly for Russia that one can only assume that it's not going the way Putin expected his invasion of Ukraine to play out.
What world leader in their right mind (dictator or not) is looking at Russia's ongoing quagmire in Ukraine as a good example to follow? This is looking more like Russia's Vietnam.
You care about lines on a map. I care about preserving life. In my opinion, it won't be the end of the world for Ukraine (or anyone else) if they never recover most of the territory that has been taken by Russia. Most of the Ukrainians who lived in the region near the frontlines have already left and wont return any time soon...
He can disagree all he wants but the facts are that all we see from Russia is drones and missisle attacks, a withdrawl from ground troops in key locations, officers complaining about not getting enough supplies and the Wagner group pulling out all together.
Weird how you omitted the fact that Ukrainian forces retreated from Bakhmut two weeks ago after a brutal nine month battle.
With that said, I don't think Russia can capture the entire country of Ukraine but I believe they have enough manpower and supplies to occupy the areas of Ukraine under their control indefinitely.
Ukraine's military is fighting courageously but it simply isn't enough to overcome Russia's inherent advantages in a long war of attrition.
-
Let's unpack what you're saying.
Since invading Ukraine:
- Russia has become a complete pariah state
- Russia is now the most sanctioned country in the world
- Russia has lost somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000 troops (depending on which estimates you believe) in just over a year of war
- $500 million in Russian assets remain frozen in Western banks
- Russia is forced to sell their oil at a huge discount to India and China to make up for the loss of the European market
In return, Russia has gained a slither of territory in Ukraine that will be uninhabitable for at least a decade if not longer.
It has worked out so poorly for Russia that one can only assume that it's not going the way Putin expected his invasion of Ukraine to play out.
What world leader in their right mind (dictator or not) is looking at Russia's ongoing quagmire in Ukraine as a good example to follow? This is looking more like Russia's Vietnam.
You care about lines on a map. I care about preserving life. In my opinion, it won't be the end of the world for Ukraine (or anyone else) if they never recover most of the territory that has been taken by Russia. Most of the Ukrainians who lived in the region near the frontlines have already left and wont return any time soon...
Weird how you omitted the fact that Ukrainian forces retreated from Bakhmut two weeks ago after a brutal nine month battle.
With that said, I don't think Russia can capture the entire country of Ukraine but I believe they have enough manpower and supplies to occupy the areas of Ukraine under their control indefinitely.
Ukraine's military is fighting courageously but it simply isn't enough to overcome Russia's inherent advantages in a long war of attrition.
You care about lines on a map.
No I care about people and their right to live where they want to live. The Russians that live in Ukraine are free to leave and go to Russia if they want to. On the other hand, the Ukrainians who live in the same area can not make such a choice freely if Russia occupies that part of the country permanently. They will be forced out of their homes and made to live somewhere else, where they don't want to be. That's the difference.
How would you feel if some of the Northern States suddenly decide they want to belong to Canada and anybody who doesn't like that can leave, would that be ok with you?
So it's not about lines on a map. That's just a silly oversimplification of the worst kind.
I care about preserving life.
No you don't, because promoting a surrender of parts of Ukraine to an aggressor will only provoke a continuation of the guerilla war that already exists. Going along with that will be suppression of the native people who will be forced to become Russian against their will (as happened in Crimea). The people living in the occupied area who want nothing to do with Russia will continue fighting despite any agreement. More lives will be lost and it will go on for decades.
Surrending parts of Ukraine to Russia to save a few bucks will send all the wrong signals.
Since invading Ukraine:
- Russia has become a complete pariah state
- Russia is now the most sanctioned country in the world
- Russia has lost somewhere between 60,000 and 150,000 troops (depending on which estimates you believe) in just over a year of war
- $500 million in Russian assets remain frozen in Western banks
- Russia is forced to sell their oil at a huge discount to India and China to make up for the loss of the European market
In return, Russia has gained a slither of territory in Ukraine that will be uninhabitable for at least a decade if not longer.
It has worked out so poorly for Russia that one can only assume that it's not going the way Putin expected his invasion of Ukraine to play out.
So, why try to reach a settlement that will basically give Putin what he wants and provoke a continued guerilla war? He already has a massive open wound. Why not give him the option to heal that wound by getting out of Ukraine and never come back?
-
No I care about people and their right to live where they want to live. The Russians that live in Ukraine are free to leave and go to Russia if they want to. On the other hand, the Ukrainians who live in the same area can not make such a choice freely if Russia occupies that part of the country permanently. They will be forced out of their homes and made to live somewhere else, where they don't want to be. That's the difference.
Maybe you didn’t care when millions of refugees fleeing wars in the Middle East and Africa came to Europe over the past decade but refugees and displaced people are a consequence of war.
Ending wars is the best solution. Prolonging wars only extends the suffering for civilians affected by wars.
As for Ukraine’s war, Russia has taken in more Ukrainian refugees than any other country. Why?
Maybe because most of the people in predominantly Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, politically align closer to Russia than their own government.
It’s complicated but prior to the 2022 invasion, eastern Ukrainians typically preferred political parties that aligned with Russia. So it shouldn’t be surprising that with the fighting mostly happening in was Ukraine, many of the refugees are going to Russia.
I assume that you don’t care as much for ethnic Russians in Ukraine or pro-Russian Ukrainians but the war is mostly being fought in the parts of Ukraine where they have lived. There’s no broad local opposition to Russian forces in that region of Ukraine. On the contrary, Ukrainian forces distrust eastern Ukrainians for the reasons I described above.
Why war-torn east Ukraine votes for pro-Russian parties
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-war-torn-east-ukraine-votes-for-pro-russian-parties/
Ukrainians in Russia align with Moscow but lament refugee camps
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/17/ukrainians-in-russia-blame-european-governments-for-ongoing-war
-
Maybe you didn’t care when millions of refugees fleeing wars in the Middle East and Africa came to Europe over the past decade but refugees and displaced people are a consequence of war.
Ending wars is the best solution. Prolonging wars only extends the suffering for civilians affected by wars.
As for Ukraine’s war, Russia has taken in more Ukrainian refugees than any other country. Why?
Maybe because most of the people in predominantly Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, politically align closer to Russia than their own government.
It’s complicated but prior to the 2022 invasion, eastern Ukrainians typically preferred political parties that aligned with Russia. So it shouldn’t be surprising that with the fighting mostly happening in was Ukraine, many of the refugees are going to Russia.
I assume that you don’t care as much for ethnic Russians in Ukraine or pro-Russian Ukrainians but the war is mostly being fought in the parts of Ukraine where they have lived. There’s no broad local opposition to Russian forces in that region of Ukraine. On the contrary, Ukrainian forces distrust eastern Ukrainians for the reasons I described above.
Why war-torn east Ukraine votes for pro-Russian parties
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-war-torn-east-ukraine-votes-for-pro-russian-parties/
Ukrainians in Russia align with Moscow but lament refugee camps
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/17/ukrainians-in-russia-blame-european-governments-for-ongoing-war
Are you still claiming not to be pro-Russia? Could have fooled me.....
The mere fact that most of the countries in the world have turned against Russia should really tell you that you are backing the wrong horse.
Ending wars is the best solution. Prolonging wars only extends the suffering for civilians affected by wars.
Agreed, but this war will not be ending as long as Russia occupies parts of Ukraine.
I assume that you don’t care as much for ethnic Russians in Ukraine or pro-Russian Ukrainians but the war is mostly being fought in the parts of Ukraine where they have lived.
Nobody was forcing the ethnic Russians and/or pro-Russian Ukrainians to stay in Ukraine. If they didn't want to be part of Ukraine all they had to do was move to Russia.
There’s no broad local opposition to Russian forces in that region of Ukraine.
Utter BS
-
The mere fact that most of the countries in the world have turned against Russia should really tell you that you are backing the wrong horse.
I'm not backing either side in this war. I just have a more nuanced view of the war (and how the US should respond to it) than you and most Liberals do.
Most Liberals in the US and Europe view this war as "good vs evil"/"black and white". I see mostly gray and I don't apply the binary framework of good vs evil. There are good and bad elements on all sides in this war.
The fact that you think my neutrality means I support Russia suggests that the binary framework describes your view. That's fine with me. I'm only trying to help you better understand my point of view.
In my opinion, the US should be pushing for a ceasefire and avoiding doing things that could potentially lead to a major escalation or expansion of the war to other countries. Keep the fire contined to Ukraine and Russia. The US shouldn't get distracted from other important issues like Climate Change and managing our geopolitical competition with China.
Ending wars is the best solution. Prolonging wars only extends the suffering for civilians affected by wars.
Agreed, but this war will not be ending as long as Russia occupies parts of Ukraine.
The Korean war never officially ended. Sometimes countries just stop shooting at each other and it becomes a frozen conflict.
Increasingly, people are looking to the Korean war as a model of how this conflict could end. At least in terms of both sides ceasing to shoot at each other while territorial issues and other issues remain unresolved...
I assume that you don’t care as much for ethnic Russians in Ukraine or pro-Russian Ukrainians but the war is mostly being fought in the parts of Ukraine where they have lived.
Nobody was forcing the ethnic Russians and/or pro-Russian Ukrainians to stay in Ukraine. If they didn't want to be part of Ukraine all they had to do was move to Russia.
So you think ethnic cleansing and discrimination against ethnic Russians in Ukraine is fair? What part of democracy or Western Liberalism embraces discrimination and opposition to cultural pluralism?
My view is, if Ukraine really intends to be a pluralistic democracy, they should follow the model of Canada. Which includes Quebec, a province that maintains French culture and language while the rest of Canada is predominantly Anglo-American culture and speaks English.
There’s no broad local opposition to Russian forces in that region of Ukraine.
Utter BS
It's true. The Ukrainian rebel militias formed in eastern Ukraine are allied with Russia. Today, they've been absorbed into the Russian army.
-
I'm not backing either side in this war. I just have a more nuanced view of the war (and how the US should respond to it) than you and most Liberals do.
Most Liberals in the US and Europe view this war as "good vs evil"/"black and white". I see mostly gray and I don't apply the binary framework of good vs evil. There are good and bad elements on all sides in this war.
The fact that you think my neutrality means I support Russia suggests that the binary framework describes your view. That's fine with me. I'm only trying to help you better understand my point of view.
In my opinion, the US should be pushing for a ceasefire and avoiding doing things that could potentially lead to a major escalation or expansion of the war to other countries. Keep the fire contined to Ukraine and Russia. The US shouldn't get distracted from other important issues like Climate Change and managing our geopolitical competition with China.
The Korean war never officially ended. Sometimes countries just stop shooting at each other and it becomes a frozen conflict.
Increasingly, people are looking to the Korean war as a model of how this conflict could end. At least in terms of both sides ceasing to shoot at each other while territorial issues and other issues remain unresolved...
So you think ethnic cleansing and discrimination against ethnic Russians in Ukraine is fair? What part of democracy or Western Liberalism embraces discrimination and opposition to cultural pluralism?
My view is, if Ukraine really intends to be a pluralistic democracy, they should follow the model of Canada. Which includes Quebec, a province that maintains French culture and language while the rest of Canada is predominantly Anglo-American culture and speaks English.
It's true. The Ukrainian rebel militias formed in eastern Ukraine are allied with Russia. Today, they've been absorbed into the Russian army.
I just have a more nuanced view of the war
Hilarious... your kind of nuance is that the victim should simply give the bully what he wants.
Most Liberals in the US and Europe view this war as "good vs evil"/"black and white". I see mostly gray
Which says it all... There is no gray. One side is the aggressor and the other side is the victim. If Russia had not invaded Ukraine none of this would ever have happened and many innocent people would still be alive. It is as simple as that. Pretending there is some sort of gray area is ignoring the cold hard facts.
The fact that you think my neutrality means I support Russia suggests that the binary framework describes your view.
Your own arguments betray your lack of neutrality. And who wants to be neutral when it is beyond obvious that only one side is the aggressor?
In my opinion, the US should be pushing for a ceasefire
Everybody should be pushing for the end of this war, not just a ceasefire which would allow Russia the opportunity to regroup. May I remind you that Ukraine has within it's borders the biggest nuclear plant in Europe. Far greater than Chernobyl. It's currently under Russian control and the people that work there are warning for a major disaster because of the way the Russians act. International atomic agencies have asked both parties to avoid further damage to the plant and Putin refused to enter into any kind of agreement to safe guard half of the planet from nuclear exposure. Where is your "nuance" on that one?
and avoiding doing things that could potentially lead to a major escalation or expansion of the war to other countries.
That's NATO's job and it is working. There is no way that Putin will try to attack a NATO country. He may be a fanatic but he's not an idiot.
Increasingly, people are looking to the Korean war as a model of how this conflict could end. At least in terms of both sides ceasing to shoot at each other while territorial issues and other issues remain unresolved...
In the heart of Europe and after the Iron Curtain affair? No way... The Ukrainians are a proud people. I have spoken to quite a few recently and they are all united; there is no way they will allow Russia to keep any part of their country.
So you think ethnic cleansing and discrimination against ethnic Russians in Ukraine is fair?
It's not ethnic cleansing. Pro-Russians have a choice. They either decide to stay in Ukraine (and thus abide by their laws) or, if they want, they can go back to Russia. Yes, that's fair. What isn't fair is being Pro-Russian and starting a war to steal a part of a country just because you want to continue to live there.
What part of democracy or Western Liberalism embraces discrimination and opposition to cultural pluralism?
So, you have already decided that Ukraine discriminates Pro-Russian people living in their own country? Way to go, Mr. "I'm neutral"! Ukraine never discriminated against Pro-Russians. Under the previous, corrupt, President it actually was the other way around.
My view is, if Ukraine really intends to be a pluralistic democracy, they should follow the model of Canada. Which includes Quebec, a province that maintains French culture and language while the rest of Canada is predominantly Anglo-American culture and speaks English.
Does the French area have the French President in charge and do the French have troops on the ground there? Talk about day dreaming..... pfffff
It's true. The Ukrainian rebel militias formed in eastern Ukraine are allied with Russia. Today, they've been absorbed into the Russian army.
Oh boy.... words fail me now.... Could you please get another hobby.
-
I just have a more nuanced view of the war
Hilarious... your kind of nuance is that the victim should simply give the bully what he wants.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Ukraine has stood up to Russia and fought them to a stalemate. That's impressive and worthy of pride for Ukrainians. But despite their early success in the war, they're still unlikely to militarily defeat Russia. That's the cold hard truth.
Ukraine doesn't have a military manufacturing base that can match Russia's and they have three times fewer citizens than Russia. The Russians rightly believe that time is on their side because objectively, they have far more advantages in a long drawn out war than Ukraine does.
Most Liberals in the US and Europe view this war as "good vs evil"/"black and white". I see mostly gray
Which says it all... There is no gray. One side is the aggressor and the other side is the victim.
We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, this war is more about Russia vs the US and NATO, than Russia vs Ukraine.
Russia doesn't want to directly go to war against NATO so they attacked Ukraine, a NATO partner country which doesn't get all the benefits that NATO member countries get.
In great power conflict, geopolitical powers prefer proxy-war over direct conflict with other nuclear powers. That kind of stuff happened throughout the Cold War. The US and USSR never fought each other directly. Instead they backed countries that fought against the US and we backed proxies that fought against the Soviets.
A similar thing happened in the Syria war over the last decade and since 2014, that largely explains what has happened in Ukraine.
Ukraine effectively is a US proxy. The Ukrainian separatist rebels were Russia's proxies.
The fact that you think my neutrality means I support Russia suggests that the binary framework describes your view.
Your own arguments betray your lack of neutrality. And who wants to be neutral when it is beyond obvious that only one side is the aggressor?
See my last comment. I don't view this war the way you do. To me, it's not Russia vs Ukraine. It's Russia vs NATO.
In my opinion, the US should be pushing for a ceasefire
Everybody should be pushing for the end of this war, not just a ceasefire which would allow Russia the opportunity to regroup.
Training and organizing an army during a hot war is very difficult if not impossible. A break would certainly benefit Ukraine's defense forces. Ukraine would be allowed to regroup, organize a new army (with F-16s and western tanks), and stock up on NATO weapons.
May I remind you that Ukraine has within it's borders the biggest nuclear plant in Europe. Far greater than Chernobyl. It's currently under Russian control and the people that work there are warning for a major disaster because of the way the Russians act. International atomic agencies have asked both parties to avoid further damage to the plant and Putin refused to enter into any kind of agreement to safe guard half of planet. Where is your "nuance" on that one?
There are lots of issues like that which will require negotiations between Ukraine and Russia or the UN and a third-party country.
There's no military solution to the problem that you described.
There is no way that Putin will try to attack a NATO country. He may be a fanatic but he's not an idiot.
One thing we agree on.
In the heart of Europe and after the Iron Curtain affair? No way...
Yes way. See Kosovo. The forgotten war in Europe...
The Ukrainians are a proud people. I have spoken to quite a few recently and they are all united; there is no way they will allow Russia to keep any part of their country.
I too personally know Ukrainians and yes, they're very proud. But "united"?
That's harder to believe given that the country is just over 30 years old and experienced a civil war for 8 years prior to Putin's 2022 invasion.
In 2014, the Russians didn't even have to fire a shot to take Crimea because the majority of the locals supported Russia. There are parts of Ukraine where Ukrainians have a cultural or political affinity with Russia (even if they don't identify themselves as Russian).
So you think ethnic cleansing and discrimination against ethnic Russians in Ukraine is fair?
It's not ethnic cleansing. Pro-Russians have a choice. They either decide to stay in Ukraine (and thus abide by their laws) or, if they want, they can go back to Russia.
I'm a bit shocked to see you flatly defend ethnic cleansing but I respect your honesty.
If they're born in Ukraine, they're "Ukrainians". Ukrainians should have the Right to speak Russian in public the same way Canadians have the Right to speak French in public.
Ethno-nationalism is gross and usually leads to dark places (see Germany in the 1930s or Israel today).
What part of democracy or Western Liberalism embraces discrimination and opposition to cultural pluralism?
So, you have already decided that Ukraine discriminates Pro-Russian people living in their own country? Way to go, Mr. "I'm neutral"! Ukraine never discriminated against Pro-Russians. Under the previous, corrupt, President it actually was the other way around.
Dude, this stuff has been well documented by Human Rights groups long before Russia's 2022 invasion. I'm not blowing smoke up anyone's arse. Look up Amnesty International's reports on Ukraine from between 2014 and 2021.
Hell, you can look up old video clips of President Zelensky defending the Right of Ukrainians to speak Russian (he's originally a Russian speaking Ukrainian). In 2019, Zelensky camaigned as the "peace candidate" and promised to negotiate an end to their civil war. Somewhere along the way, he got sucked into the Ukrainian nationalists camp and began arresting his political opponents and banning opposition media outlets months before Putin invaded.
Ukraine is far from a stable democracy. It was a very flawed democracy even before the current war.
-
I have no idea what you're talking about. Ukraine has stood up to Russia and fought them to a stalemate. That's impressive and worthy of pride for Ukrainians. But despite their early success in the war, they're still unlikely to militarily defeat Russia. That's the cold hard truth.
Ukraine doesn't have a military manufacturing base that can match Russia's and they have three times fewer citizens than Russia. The Russians rightly believe that time is on their side because objectively, they have far more advantages in a long drawn out war than Ukraine does.
We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, this war is more about Russia vs the US and NATO, than Russia vs Ukraine.
Russia doesn't want to directly go to war against NATO so they attacked Ukraine, a NATO partner country which doesn't get all the benefits that NATO member countries get.
In great power conflict, geopolitical powers prefer proxy-war over direct conflict with other nuclear powers. That kind of stuff happened throughout the Cold War. The US and USSR never fought each other directly. Instead they backed countries that fought against the US and we backed proxies that fought against the Soviets.
A similar thing happened in the Syria war over the last decade and since 2014, that largely explains what has happened in Ukraine.
Ukraine effectively is a US proxy. The Ukrainian separatist rebels were Russia's proxies.
See my last comment. I don't view this war the way you do. To me, it's not Russia vs Ukraine. It's Russia vs NATO.
Training and organizing an army during a hot war is very difficult if not impossible. A break would certainly benefit Ukraine's defense forces. Ukraine would be allowed to regroup, organize a new army (with F-16s and western tanks), and stock up on NATO weapons.
There are lots of issues like that which will require negotiations between Ukraine and Russia or the UN and a third-party country.
There's no military solution to the problem that you described.
One thing we agree on.
Yes way. See Kosovo. The forgotten war in Europe...
I too personally know Ukrainians and yes, they're very proud. But "united"?
That's harder to believe given that the country is just over 30 years old and experienced a civil war for 8 years prior to Putin's 2022 invasion.
In 2014, the Russians didn't even have to fire a shot to take Crimea because the majority of the locals supported Russia. There are parts of Ukraine where Ukrainians have a cultural or political affinity with Russia (even if they don't identify themselves as Russian).
I'm a bit shocked to see you flatly defend ethnic cleansing but I respect your honesty.
If they're born in Ukraine, they're "Ukrainians". Ukrainians should have the Right to speak Russian in public the same way Canadians have the Right to speak French in public.
Ethno-nationalism is gross and usually leads to dark places (see Germany in the 1930s or Israel today).
Dude, this stuff has been well documented by Human Rights groups long before Russia's 2022 invasion. I'm not blowing smoke up anyone's arse. Look up Amnesty International's reports on Ukraine from between 2014 and 2021.
Hell, you can look up old video clips of President Zelensky defending the Right of Ukrainians to speak Russian (he's originally a Russian speaking Ukrainian). In 2019, Zelensky camaigned as the "peace candidate" and promised to negotiate an end to their civil war. Somewhere along the way, he got sucked into the Ukrainian nationalists camp and began arresting his political opponents and banning opposition media outlets months before Putin invaded.
Ukraine is far from a stable democracy. It was a very flawed democracy even before the current war.
And still he insists that he is neutral and not Pro-Russia.... wow!
-
And still he insists that he is neutral and not Pro-Russia.... wow!
I’m “pro-peace” and “pro-common sense”.
War is a racket. It needs to end as soon as possible…
-
I’m “pro-peace” and “pro-common sense”.
War is a racket. It needs to end as soon as possible…
We agree on that. War is never the answer.
-
We agree on that. War is never the answer.
Sometimes war is the answer. A lot of people died in World War II. But even more people would have died if the Allies made peace with Germany. If the Soviet Union decided not to wage war against the Nazis and just let them occupy as much land as they want to.
-
Sometimes war is the answer. A lot of people died in World War II. But even more people would have died if the Allies made peace with Germany. If the Soviet Union decided not to wage war against the Nazis and just let them occupy as much land as they want to.
How exactly would "more people have died" if the allies had made peace with Germany? There were something like 50 million people killed in that war. Countless injured. Cities destroyed. Maybe you can argue that the Nazis were so evil that the war was justified but not that the war saved lives. And, of course, the situation in Ukraine is nothing like WWII. Putin is not Hitler. There is no genocide going on. This is a regional conflict that predates this war by centuries. It is more akin to Vietnam or Afghanistan than WWII.
-
Ukraine will be a smoldering hole by the time this war ends. The weakness and incompetence of Old Joe emboldened Putin to invade. Biden's inability to articulate a policy or plan for ending it is maximizing the cost to everyone. No effort whatsoever is being made by anyone in the Biden administration to find a solution. Just endless war until the Russians decide enough is enough. Is that in five years, ten, a hundred? No one knows. That is what happens when you elect a person based on propaganda and lies. I feel sorry for the people of Ukraine that they are pawns for radicalized Trump haters.
-
The NY Times begrudgingly acknowledged that Ukraine has a Nazi problem
-
How exactly would "more people have died" if the allies had made peace with Germany? There were something like 50 million people killed in that war. Countless injured. Cities destroyed. Maybe you can argue that the Nazis were so evil that the war was justified but not that the war saved lives. And, of course, the situation in Ukraine is nothing like WWII. Putin is not Hitler. There is no genocide going on. This is a regional conflict that predates this war by centuries. It is more akin to Vietnam or Afghanistan than WWII.
In Eastern Europe, the majority of the millions who died were civilians, not soldiers killed in battle. Hitler made it clear in "Mein Kampf" that he intended to replace the millions of "Slavs" in the east with German settlers. So the German army had no problem using the slightest excuse to wipe out entire villages of hundreds of people on the excuse that they were all partisans. Had the German army not been so pre-occupied with the bulk of the army fighting the Red Army, the number of civilians killed could have been much higher than it was.
Admittedly, Hitler was unpredictable. Maybe we would have accepted a German-Russian-Ukrainian-Polish-Baltic hybrid people populating eastern Europe after he was gone. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
So yes, it is possible for a people to lose more people after defeat than they did during war.
If Ukraine is defeated, it is possible that Ukraine will have fewer people killed after defeat than the loses they have suffered during the war. Putin may decide to limit the number of people he should have killed if he wins. But if I was Ukrainian, I wouldn't bet on it. He might want to kill all the officers of high rank. Or all officers of any rank. As Stalin did with the Polish officers in 1940. Or anyone who volunteered to serve in the Ukrainian army. To take out the people most likely to resist Russian rule. If Ukraine loses to Russia, they could easily have more people killed during the subsequent "peace" as were killed during the war. It would be up to the whim of Putin to decide. Just as it was up to the whim of Stalin to decide whether to kill the Polish officers or not in 1940.
-
Why aren't the Ukrainians attacking more?
The blowing of the dam flooded about 60 miles of Russia's front. Giving Russia 60 less miles of front to defend. Allowing those troops to be concentrated to the East, in eastern Zaporizhzhia.
But if the Ukrainians wait a few weeks, as they appear to be doing, the flood waters will come down. Than the hot Ukrainian summer sun will dry out the wet soil. And a river crossing of that 60 mile stretch will be possible, forcing the Russians to send back the troops to defend that stretch, to prevent the "Land Bridge" to Crimea from being cut.
In addition, the reservoir that extended something like 120 miles upstream of the dam is now largely gone. When this land dries out, it will now be vulnerable, to a river crossing by an army. Something that could not have been done while the dam still stood.
So, in the long run, the Russians have just needlessly given themselves an extra 120 miles of frontage to defend. And gotten a lot of their soldiers sick with Cholera. Just to give them a temporary advantage of 60 miles less of frontage to defend. Something that the Ukrainians can easily negate by waiting a few weeks. They can delay the offensive. It probably won't take 4 months to advance 50 miles at a weak spot that they choose.
So blowing the dam gives the Russian's a temporary advantage of 60 miles less of line that has to be manned. But in the long run, just a few weeks from now, they will have to defend those 60 miles again. And up to another 120 miles on top of that. Giving them a long flank of 300 miles long, but only 50 miles wide, to defend. An attack that breaks through anywhere and advances a mere 50 or so miles, will break the "Land Bridge" to Crimea, likely resulting in the fall of Crimea. Which may cause the Russian people to throw in the towel and give up on this clown show. We shall see.
-
Goodbye Yevgeny Prigozhin. Perhaps, goodbye the Wagner Group. Though I suspect not. I doubt very many members of the Wagner Group will go to war with the FSB. In any case, the Wagner Group is about to come under new management. The chef to Putin has just cooked his own goose. Putin will get his revenge and it won't be served cold. It's coming fast.
-
The NY Times begrudgingly acknowledged that Ukraine has a Nazi problem
The United States has a Nazi problem. Germany has a Nazi problem. Lot's of countries have a Nazi problem. Indeed, America's biggest Fascist problem is ex-President Trump. Who, alone of all of America's Presidents, I do not consider to be a real President. You have to die in office, or turn over power to your successor, in a way to reaffirm the people's faith in democracy. Only then do you truly become an American President. And we have Americans who if not pro-Nazi, seem to be pro-Fascist. Who echo the arguments of Russia, a Fascist state.
But no country has as big a Nazi problem as Russia. No other country heavily relies on a group like the Wagner Group, named after Hitler's favorite composer and which makes extensive use of Nazi like imagery. And it's not just the Wagner Group. Leading spokesmen of Russia have proclaimed "One country, One President, One Victory", very similar to the Nazi slogan "One people, One Germany, One Leader".
-
But no country has as big a Nazi problem as Russia. No other country heavily relies on a group like the Wagner Group, named after Hitler's favorite composer and which makes extensive use of Nazi like imagery. And it's not just the Wagner Group. Leading spokesmen of Russia have proclaimed "One country, One President, One Victory", very similar to the Nazi slogan "One people, One Germany, One Leader".
The head of Wagner, or former head now, has a Jewish parent (not sure if it's his mom or dad). So if Ukraine can't have a Nazi problem because Zelensky has Jewish ancestry does that mean you can't call Wagner Nazis?
Ukraine celebrates the Azov Battalion, which has a Nazi symbol as their logo. They're also collaborating with Russian neo-Nazis who have been raiding Russian border towns. And Ukraine has streets named after Nazi collaborators. Are there examples of Russia doing those things?
-
The head of Wagner, or former head now, has a Jewish parent (not sure if it's his mom or dad). So if Ukraine can't have a Nazi problem because Zelensky has Jewish ancestry does that mean you can't call Wagner Nazis?
Ukraine celebrates the Azov Battalion, which has a Nazi symbol as their logo. They're also collaborating with Russian neo-Nazis who have been raiding Russian border towns. And Ukraine has streets named after Nazi collaborators. Are there examples of Russia doing those things?
It is downright scary to see the leftists celebrating an insurrection in Russia by an actual militant miltia group (as opposed to what happeed on Jan. 6). Was it Biden's plan to destabilize Russia, and put the Russian nuclear arsenal in the hands of radicalized individuals? Was that the objective? That is apparently deemed a success by the modern leftists. A very dangerous situation has been created by Biden's insane overreaction to this regional conflict. Of course, even that didn't work out but CNN is still running baseless stories about Putin weakening. Biden is caught completely by surprise by every event. He and his clown show have miscalculated every step of this war beginning with believing that Russia would overrun Ukraine in a matter of weeks. They offered to evacuate Zelensky. What a clown show. Ironically, they made exactly the opposite miscalculation in Afghanistan believing that the government could hold its own. A complete foreign policy disaster. This is what happens when folks are not elected or appointed based on competence but due solely to race, gender, and sexual orientation.
-
Lawmakers using Russia rebellion to push for more weapons to Ukraine
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawmakers-using-russia-rebellion-to-push-for-more-weapons-to-ukraine/ar-AA1d7XCb?cvid=aef0364b15f949e991029855e6a959b5&ei=32
This article makes a couple of good points:
Points made by Senator McConnell
"I know there are some voices of opposition in the United States, but here's a way to look at it: the amount of money we've spent, sent to Ukraine is about .02 percent of our gross national product, and most of it is spent in this country," McConnell said. "So we have a country only asking for help that's doing the fighting."
My point: 2 percent of 1 percent of the U. S.'s GNP. Our spending on Ukraine is minimal compared to what it accomplishes.
Points made by Rep. Don Bacon:
Another Republican supporter of Ukraine aid, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday that it’s been money well spent. The aid, which equates to 5 percent of the U.S. military budget, has helped take out half of Russia’s military, he said.
“Our actions have helped Ukraine prevail to the extent that they are right now. They’re still in a war, Russia controls 10 percent of their country, but without our aid, without our support, I think Ukraine would have fallen by now,” said Bacon, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
My point: Well, I can't say it any better than Rep. Don Bacon. 5 % of our military budget takes out about half of Russia's military available to invade other countries. That sounds like pretty efficient spending. Imagine if there was a way to divert 5 % of our 1938 military budget, that would have cut Germany's army strength by 50 %. That would have been a hell of a good deal.
There is no exaggeration that Rep. Don Bacon is making. If anything, he is grossly understating things. Because of our support, the attack Russia can make with their army against other countries right now is much less than half they could make if they were not bogged down in Ukraine. And they would not still be bogged down if we had sent nothing. If we have hoarded our 5% of our military budget.
Our 5% spending has made Russia so weak, it can't even stop a two division (at best) thrust from capturing the Russia army headquarters for the invasion of Ukraine, from advancing 400 miles, three quarters of the way to Moscow, in two days. The German blitzkrieg's of 1939-1942 have nothing compared to this. But they never went against such weak defenses. Russia has already committed all it's got into Ukraine. There are no vast reserves that are going to swoop in from somewhere and overwhelm Ukraine. Ukraine valor, and our 5 %, has made this happen. Let it continue to happen.
-
The head of Wagner, or former head now, has a Jewish parent (not sure if it's his mom or dad). So if Ukraine can't have a Nazi problem because Zelensky has Jewish ancestry does that mean you can't call Wagner Nazis?
Ukraine celebrates the Azov Battalion, which has a Nazi symbol as their logo. They're also collaborating with Russian neo-Nazis who have been raiding Russian border towns. And Ukraine has streets named after Nazi collaborators. Are there examples of Russia doing those things?
President Zelensky doesn't use Nazi imagery in his symbols. He does not call out for the elimination of another country or it's culture. He doesn't name his origination after Hitler's favorite composer. Prigozhin does all that.
And Prigozhin is a great hero to millions of Russians, who want to cheer him and take selfies with him. Or at least did so as recently as last Saturday. His chickening out will make them look for some other 'hero' who will promise the elimination of Ukrainian culture, Ukrainian language and of Ukraine itself. Something Russia has never accomplished in over 250 years of occupation.
The presence of millions who loved Prigozhin would make me think that Ukraine's cause is hopeless. Were it not for the evidence incompetence of the Russian state. Those Rostov guys who took selfies with Prinozhin. All support having millions of fellow Russians join the army and go crush Ukraine. But not one of them will go themselves, if there is any way to avoid it. Ukraine will prevail.
-
Lawmakers using Russia rebellion to push for more weapons to Ukraine
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawmakers-using-russia-rebellion-to-push-for-more-weapons-to-ukraine/ar-AA1d7XCb?cvid=aef0364b15f949e991029855e6a959b5&ei=32
This article makes a couple of good points:
Points made by Senator McConnell
"I know there are some voices of opposition in the United States, but here's a way to look at it: the amount of money we've spent, sent to Ukraine is about .02 percent of our gross national product, and most of it is spent in this country," McConnell said. "So we have a country only asking for help that's doing the fighting."
My point: 2 percent of 1 percent of the U. S.'s GNP. Our spending on Ukraine is minimal compared to what it accomplishes.
Points made by Rep. Don Bacon:
Another Republican supporter of Ukraine aid, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday that it’s been money well spent. The aid, which equates to 5 percent of the U.S. military budget, has helped take out half of Russia’s military, he said.
“Our actions have helped Ukraine prevail to the extent that they are right now. They’re still in a war, Russia controls 10 percent of their country, but without our aid, without our support, I think Ukraine would have fallen by now,” said Bacon, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
My point: Well, I can't say it any better than Rep. Don Bacon. 5 % of our military budget takes out about half of Russia's military available to invade other countries. That sounds like pretty efficient spending. Imagine if there was a way to divert 5 % of our 1938 military budget, that would have cut Germany's army strength by 50 %. That would have been a hell of a good deal.
There is no exaggeration that Rep. Don Bacon is making. If anything, he is grossly understating things. Because of our support, the attack Russia can make with their army against other countries right now is much less than half they could make if they were not bogged down in Ukraine. And they would not still be bogged down if we had sent nothing. If we have hoarded our 5% of our military budget.
Our 5% spending has made Russia so weak, it can't even stop a two division (at best) thrust from capturing the Russia army headquarters for the invasion of Ukraine, from advancing 400 miles, three quarters of the way to Moscow, in two days. The German blitzkrieg's of 1939-1942 have nothing compared to this. But they never went against such weak defenses. Russia has already committed all it's got into Ukraine. There are no vast reserves that are going to swoop in from somewhere and overwhelm Ukraine. Ukraine valor, and our 5 %, has made this happen. Let it continue to happen.
Great return on our investment if you ignore the fact that thousands of Ukrainians have been killed in this senseless war.
-
"I want everybody to stop dying. They're dying. Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I'll have that done. I'll have that done in 24 hours. I'll have it done. You need the power of the presidency to do it." President Donald Trump.
"The fact of the matter is that I believe we'll have the funding necessary to support Ukraine as long as it takes." Ukraine Joe.
What a contrast. Trump wants to end the war. Old Joe wants it to go on and on killing more and more Russians and Ukranians, destroying cities that the US will ultimately pay to rebuild, and costing billions to the US taxpayers potentially for years to come with no end in sight or even articulated plan to end it.
-
"I want everybody to stop dying. They're dying. Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I'll have that done. I'll have that done in 24 hours. I'll have it done. You need the power of the presidency to do it." President Donald Trump.
"The fact of the matter is that I believe we'll have the funding necessary to support Ukraine as long as it takes." Ukraine Joe.
What a contrast. Trump wants to end the war. Old Joe wants it to go on and on killing more and more Russians and Ukranians, destroying cities that the US will ultimately pay to rebuild, and costing billions to the US taxpayers potentially for years to come with no end in sight or even articulated plan to end it.
Really bizarre how Trump sounds more reasonable than Biden who has decades of experience in foreign policy.
Under almost every other circumstance, the US supports ceasefires to end ongoing conflicts. The Russia-Ukraine war is the rare instance where we're discouraging attempts to reach a ceasefire because it's essentially a proxy-war. We're sacrificing Ukrainian blood to weaken Russia.
To what end? I don't know. I thought the Cold War ended in 1991. Apparently, the Cold War mentality persists...
-
Really bizarre how Trump sounds more reasonable than Biden who has decades of experience in foreign policy.
Under almost every other circumstance, the US supports ceasefires to end ongoing conflicts. The Russia-Ukraine war is the rare instance where we're discouraging attempts to reach a ceasefire because it's essentially a proxy-war. We're sacrificing Ukrainian blood to weaken Russia.
To what end? I don't know. I thought the Cold War ended in 1991. Apparently, the Cold War mentality persists...
That's exactly right. There appears to be two incentives. After pulling out of Afghanistan the military complex needed another endless war to fund the machine. There are lots of military contractors getting filthy rich selling equipment to the US to send to Ukraine. And the old Cold War hawks are finally getting a crack at Russia that they desired for decades weakening Russia at the expense of the people of Ukraine. Underlying all of the above was the fake conspiracy theory that Trump and Putin were somehow collaborating to end democracy. The politics of this war work to support that baseless political narrative. That is why so many liberals who are historically opposed to war are the most ardent advocates of this war. They see Putin and Russia as a proxy for Trump. So any means justifies the ends. Even WWIII.
-
That's exactly right. There appears to be two incentives. After pulling out of Afghanistan the military complex needed another endless war to fund the machine. There are lots of military contractors getting filthy rich selling equipment to the US to send to Ukraine. And the old Cold War hawks are finally getting a crack at Russia that they desired for decades weakening Russia at the expense of the people of Ukraine. Underlying all of the above was the fake conspiracy theory that Trump and Putin were somehow collaborating to end democracy. The politics of this war work to support that baseless political narrative. That is why so many liberals who are historically opposed to war are the most ardent advocates of this war. They see Putin and Russia as a proxy for Trump. So any means justifies the ends. Even WWIII.
Sadly I think you're spot-on.
In contrast, in 2014, before the "Trump-Russia" stuff, polls showed Democrats overwhelmingly opposing US intervention in Ukraine.
See the quote below from a 2014 article:
"fewer than a quarter of Republicans, Democrats or independents surveyed favored sending weapons and other military supplies to help the Ukrainian government -- and more Democrats than Republicans favored offering economic assistance, 56% to 43%."
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2014-mar-10-la-pn-republicans-military-involvement-ukraine-20140310-story.html
-
The excuses are already beginning as to why the Ukrainian couneroffensive has amounted to nothing other than more stalemate after receiving billions in military aid. What does that mean? You guessed it. They need more American money and weapons including cluster munition warheads designed to maximize casualties. That means lots more civilian deaths. Way to go Joe! This is working out well. No need to find a solution. Just let the war go on and on.
-
The excuses are already beginning as to why the Ukrainian couneroffensive has amounted to nothing other than more stalemate after receiving billions in military aid. What does that mean? You guessed it. They need more American money and weapons including cluster munition warheads designed to maximize casualties. That means lots more civilian deaths. Way to go Joe! This is working out well. No need to find a solution. Just let the war go on and on.
The Great Fun the Russians had last weekend make me believe the war won't go on an on. A 480 mile drive from Rostov to Moscow, stopping 120 miles short. 80 % of the way. Until Prigozhin lost his nerve. It takes more than ordering men to be murdered with a sledgehammer to show your tough. Prigozhin showed to history that he is not tough. Not tough the way Zelensky is. Or even Mike Pence.
Where was the Russian army? Where was the Russian National Guard? Where was the Russian Air Force. A moderate amount of air power should have been able to stop a moderate size force like that. An army force is most vulnerable to air power when it is on the move. Only a minimum response was made by the air force, and less by the army.
The armed forces have no loyalty to Putin. They were just standing around to see what would happen. No wonder Putin sounded so panic, comparing himself to Nicolas II. Fearing another 1917.
Question:
In all of history, where have we seen an army go through what the Russian army did last week, and continue on to fight a "Forever War", for another 10 years? For another 5 years?
The British had nothing like this happen in the American Revolution, but managed to fight on for 6 years before throwing in the towel.
I can't think of anything similar. Can anyone?
* * * * *
I don't think the Ukrainians have started the real offensive yet. If they have, they have made a mistake. They should wait until the ground dries out from the flood caused by the Russians blowing the dam. Along the Dnipro river. And maybe the ground where the reservoir was upstream may dry out under the hot Ukrainian sun. Once the ground has dried out as much as possible, Russians will have to send forces back to the west to defend these regions. Only then will the Russian lines be thinned out enough to give Ukraine it's best chance. I hope Ukraine waits till the best moment and don't rush things just to get something to happen before some NATO meeting.
-
It appears that in the next few days, on or shortly after July 5, Russia is going to launch a nuclear strike against Ukraine. By having an 'accident' at the Russian occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power plant. All personal are being ordered away from there. It seems he may have learned a lesson from blowing the dam. Not getting his troops out of the flood path and exposed to bad drinking water that gives them Cholera. At least, that is what it looks like.
I think the final trigger to this is the Wagner mutiny. To show Putin is capable of anything. Like fleeing the Kremlin and Moscow if the Wagner Group makes a run at him.
If this happens, it won't work and will make everyone more determined than ever to stop him. Some people never learn.
-
It appears that in the next few days, on or shortly after July 5, Russia is going to launch a nuclear strike against Ukraine. By having an 'accident' at the Russian occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power plant. All personal are being ordered away from there. It seems he may have learned a lesson from blowing the dam. Not getting his troops out of the flood path and exposed to bad drinking water that gives them Cholera. At least, that is what it looks like.
I think the final trigger to this is the Wagner mutiny. To show Putin is capable of anything. Like fleeing the Kremlin and Moscow if the Wagner Group makes a run at him.
If this happens, it won't work and will make everyone more determined than ever to stop him. Some people never learn.
The IAEA has reported that there’s no suspicious activity at the Nuclear power plant.
The truth is, Ukraine’s counteroffensive is going poorly. They desperately need a game-changing event to justify long term military and financial aid.
So Ukraine could potentially be planning a false-flag incident at the Nuclear power plant.
-
It appears that in the next few days, on or shortly after July 5, Russia is going to launch a nuclear strike against Ukraine. By having an 'accident' at the Russian occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power plant. All personal are being ordered away from there. It seems he may have learned a lesson from blowing the dam. Not getting his troops out of the flood path and exposed to bad drinking water that gives them Cholera. At least, that is what it looks like.
I think the final trigger to this is the Wagner mutiny. To show Putin is capable of anything. Like fleeing the Kremlin and Moscow if the Wagner Group makes a run at him.
If this happens, it won't work and will make everyone more determined than ever to stop him. Some people never learn.
"Some people never learn." Words of wisdom. The US politicians didn't learn from Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Old Joe jumped right back into another regional conflict which can't be won. And if there is a nuclear incident that is as much on Biden as anyone. His insane overreaction to this conflict has escalated the situation, resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, and the destruction of many regions of Ukraine. The Russians are certainly morally at fault but this war has nothing to do with democracy or any of the bull spun by Biden and the leftist media. It is all about money and weakening Russia by using the Ukrainians as fodder. They will curse Biden's name for centuries the same way they curse LBJ in Vietnam. Be careful what you wish for with the Wagner group. It is bizarre to imply that it would be better if Putin is removed by a militia group (a real insurrection and not the fake Jan. 6 version). The Wagner group is not upset with Putin for invading Ukraine. They are angry because the war has not been conducted more ruthlessly. Imagine the Russian nuclear arsenal in the hands of those people. That is what Biden's policy has done. He has put the entire world at risk of nuclear war for no clear purpose and with no exit ramp.
-
As expected, Old Joe continues to escalate. He has decided to send "cluster" bombs to Ukraine which are designed to maximize casualties including civilian casualties. It means many more unnecessary and gruesome deaths for Ukrainians. The Russians are dug in now. It will be almost impossible to overrun them by military means. That means stalemate for as long as the Russians want this to continue. Maybe years. How much will it eventually cost? How many more people are going to die? How much will the outcome be changed by years of war? What is Old Joe's plan to end it? It truly borders on the incredible that the US has gotten itself back into a similar situation here after finally getting out of Afghanistan. And with no clear objective or way to end it. Just as long as it takes again. What "it" is remeans unclear as it was in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
-
As expected, Old Joe continues to escalate. He has decided to send "cluster" bombs to Ukraine which are designed to maximize casualties including civilian casualties. It means many more unnecessary and gruesome deaths for Ukrainians. The Russians are dug in now. It will be almost impossible to overrun them by military means. That means stalemate for as long as the Russians want this to continue. Maybe years. How much will it eventually cost? How many more people are going to die? How much will the outcome be changed by years of war? What is Old Joe's plan to end it? It truly borders on the incredible that the US has gotten itself back into a similar situation here after finally getting out of Afghanistan. And with no clear objective or way to end it. Just as long as it takes again. What "it" is remeans unclear as it was in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
We have to destroy Ukraine to save it.
-
We have to destroy Ukraine to save it.
Staggering death toll estimates on both sides. And for what when all is said and done? Millions died in places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan in endless wars. Everyone was worse off at the end of those conflicts than the beginning. The US certainly has never benefitted from these endless regional conflicts. Old Joe has put himself in the Vietnam box with no off ramp. His only hope is that Russia says "no mas" at some point. That is not a strategy but a floundering wish with the decision solely on the side of Russia for determine when it is over.
-
After being given billions in military equipment and support by the US, Zelensky is upset that Ukraine is not being allowed to join NATO. What exactly would happen if that were allowed while they are still at war with Russia? WWIII because it would necessitate that the US and "Europe" intervene to protect Ukraine as a fellow NATO member. Zelensky is reaching the point where he is demanding direct intervention by the US and others in an endless war. An incredibly unreasonable and dangerous request. If Old Joe had any backbone, he would be the one making the demands on Zelensky to end this war via some type of settlement. Instead Old Joe has no real plan or policy. It just goes on and on getting increasingly dangerous and maximizing the harm and cost to everyone involved. The leftists who flew those Ukrainian flags after being sold on the state propaganda must be feeling like rubes at this point.
-
After being given billions in military equipment and support by the US, Zelensky is upset that Ukraine is not being allowed to join NATO. What exactly would happen if that were allowed while they are still at war with Russia? WWIII because it would necessitate that the US and "Europe" intervene to protect Ukraine as a fellow NATO member. Zelensky is reaching the point where he is demanding direct intervention by the US and others in an endless war. An incredibly unreasonable and dangerous request. If Old Joe had any backbone, he would be the one making the demands on Zelensky to end this war via some type of settlement. Instead Old Joe has no real plan or policy. It just goes on and on getting increasingly dangerous and maximizing the harm and cost to everyone involved. The leftists who flew those Ukrainian flags after being sold on the state propaganda must be feeling like rubes at this point.
Ukraine is effectively part of NATO but they're not an official member so they don't get the benefit of NATO coming to their defense against Russia. Which sucks for Ukraine but that's the situation they're in. They're not going to be allowed to join NATO while they're being invaded.
Zelensky lashed out publicly against NATO countries today and I think it's the clearest sign that he's breaking down mentally over the war.
-
PBS ran an incredibly biased account of Putin last night. At one point they mocked the fact that he held a meeting at which his advisors sat widely spaced apart. They compared it to the treatment of schoolchildren. Apparently forgetting the mantra about social distancing which the leftists were promoting at the time. Incredible propaganda. I'm no fan of Putin and the Russians are morally wrong for invasion of Ukraine, but it is frightening how complicit the leftist media has become with our state sponsored propaganda. Simply repeating what they are told without question. Not much different than the Russian media.
-
PBS ran an incredibly biased account of Putin last night. At one point they mocked the fact that he held a meeting at which his advisors sat widely spaced apart. They compared it to the treatment of schoolchildren. Apparently forgetting the mantra about social distancing which the leftists were promoting at the time. Incredible propaganda. I'm no fan of Putin and the Russians are morally wrong for invasion of Ukraine, but it is frightening how complicit the leftist media has become with our state sponsored propaganda. Simply repeating what they are told without question. Not much different than the Russian media.
It's usually bad to believe your own BS but many liberals in politics and the news media do believe their own BS about Russia.
Hence why they're so shocked that Ukraine's counteroffensive is floundering so far.
-
Old Joe is being pressured by Zelensky to send in the ground forces. For some inexplicable reason, despite having approximately 100K Americans soldiers in "Europe", Old Joe has just ordered more soldiers there. Ukraine Joe has yet to articulate an American interest in this conflict or a means to end it, but he has consistently escalated the military presence. The most reckless foreign policy decision in history. All the while expanding NATO to the borders of Russia in a threatening manner that will serve only to escalate the tensions and extend the war. He is basically giving Russia and Putin only two options. Capitulation or world war. A dangerous and reckless situation being directed by a clown show.
-
Even leftist state arm propaganda outlet CNN is acknowledging today that Ukraine has suffered "staggering" losses in the recent offensive while gaining almost no ground. The war is effectively a stalemate consuming thousands of lives and billions of dollars for no purpose. It is Afghanistan and Vietnam all over again. Old Joe has yet to articulate a policy except "as long as it takes." That could mean years more of endless war with no end game. A recent poll cited by CNN indicates that the majority of Americans are now opposed to funding the war. Yet it goes on and on enriching the military contractors and corrupt politicians.
-
Even leftist state arm propaganda outlet CNN is acknowledging today that Ukraine has suffered "staggering" losses in the recent offensive while gaining almost no ground. The war is effectively a stalemate consuming thousands of lives and billions of dollars for no purpose. It is Afghanistan and Vietnam all over again. Old Joe has yet to articulate a policy except "as long as it takes." That could mean years more of endless war with no end game. A recent poll cited by CNN indicates that the majority of Americans are now opposed to funding the war. Yet it goes on and on enriching the military contractors and corrupt politicians.
The news media narrative certainly seems to have turned very gloomy of late. And it was predictable to anyone who read the Pentagon leaks that came out last Spring.
-
Another $200 million for Ukraine! Way to go Joe! Keep the war machine funded. "Europe" has completely checked out. We are supposed to be defending them but they don't seem too concerned. At least not enough to contribute in any significant way. Complete stalemate while Ukraine is destroyed in an endless war funded by Old Joe. When all is said and done, the US will have to pay to rebuild the country. Trump would end this war in short order by making Zelensky see the light. Come to an agreement or the money gets cut off. Problem solved.
-
Politico: Ukraine’s top Freedom Caucus ally gets cold feet
Standing in front of a PowerPoint presentation on the national debt, Rep. Andy Harris told his constituents it’s about time to wind down direct U.S. aid to Ukraine.
“Is this more a stalemate? Should we be realistic about it? I think we probably should,” Harris (R-Md.) said at a Tuesday night town hall, held at a public library about 75 miles north of Washington.
He said of Ukraine’s springtime offensive that was intended to turn the tide of the war: “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.” And he was blunt, too, about the prospects for a victory ahead: “I’m not sure it’s winnable anymore.”
Why he’s different: Those are not unconventional views for a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, of which Harris is a longtime member. But Harris is also a co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus whose Ukrainian mother fled communist Eastern Europe after World War II.
He remained steadfast in his support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy through the early months of the war and voted for Congress’s big standalone Ukraine aid package last year, backing both military aid and humanitarian aid for the tiny nation in its Goliath-sized fight against Russia.
Harris is also a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, giving him an outsize voice in his party’s spending priorities.
Asked in an interview after the town hall whether he’d support another tranche of aid, he sharply hedged: “If there is humanitarian monies, nonmilitary monies, or military monies without an inspector general, I’m not supporting it.”
A conservative’s qualms: Harris’s new tone on Ukraine aid is one more sign of the GOP’s shifting ground on the issue. And it’s a preview of just how much of a headache the issue will be for Speaker Kevin McCarthy when lawmakers return from recess next month. President Joe Biden is seeking $24 billion more in emergency funds for Ukraine this fall — a request that will need to go through GOP conservatives whose positions on the aid sound a lot like Harris’s.
Among the many concerns Harris laid out: The prospect of fraud or waste. Rising U.S. food prices. The possibility of starting “World War III” by bringing Ukraine into NATO. But most of all — the cost.
“I’m sorry, we don’t have that kind of money,” Harris said, pointing to the trillion-dollar U.S. deficits in the post-Covid years.
And now, he has joined the chorus of GOP hardliners on Capitol Hill who are pushing for a negotiated end to the war.
“I think the time has come to realistically call for peace talks. I know President Zelenskyy doesn’t want it,” Harris told his town hall crowd. “But President Zelenskyy, without our help, he would abjectly lose the war. And with our help, he’s not winning. It’s a stalemate now. “
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2023/08/17/ukraines-top-freedom-caucus-ally-gets-cold-feet-00111608
-
Politico: Ukraine’s top Freedom Caucus ally gets cold feet
It seems pretty clear that the situation is a stalemate. Any responsible US leader would attempt to broker a peace settlement between the parties instead of funding the continuation of the war. Every day that this war continues means more pointless deaths, destroyed cities, and rising costs to everyone. But Old Joe seems to content to let it go on and on for "as long as it takes." What is the plan? The Russians are dug in. The Ukranians cannot dislodge them despite being given ten times the amount of the entire Russian defense budget. So what now? Don't ask Old Joe. If he were even available to be asked instead of napping at the beach, his answer would be "no comment." The same response he gave the people in Hawaii.
-
There is some wacky retired Cold War general on Fox News who keeps claiming that the billions spent in Ukraine is a "good return on our investment" because it weakens Russia. Imagine that mindset. We are spending money to kill Russians and using Ukraine as our cannon fodder to appease the need of some old military establishment types to fight a war with Russia that they were denied. Are we at war Russia? Unless they are going to attack us, what difference does it make that they are "weakened"? And by "weakened" he means tens of thousands are killed and maimed in horrible ways by US weapons. If they can't even take a few regions of Ukraine, they are no risk to "Europe" much less the US. That is just another of the many lies that have been told to justify the endless wars that that the US taxpayer has been duped into funding over the last hundred years. Meanwhile thousands of drug addicted and mentally ill US citizens are living on the streets like animals.
-
There is some wacky retired Cold War general on Fox News who keeps claiming that the billions spent in Ukraine is a "good return on our investment" because it weakens Russia. Imagine that mindset. We are spending money to kill Russians and using Ukraine as our cannon fodder to appease the need of some old military establishment types to fight a war with Russia that they were denied. Are we at war Russia? Unless they are going to attack us, what difference does it make that they are "weakened"? And by "weakened" he means tens of thousands are killed and maimed in horrible ways by US weapons. If they can't even take a few regions of Ukraine, they are no risk to "Europe" much less the US. That is just another of the many lies that have been told to justify the endless wars that that the US taxpayer has been duped into funding over the last hundred years. Meanwhile thousands of drug addicted and mentally ill US citizens are living on the streets like animals.
Technically, yes we are at war with Russia but not directly. But I agree, Russia isn't a threat to us. It's not at all clear to me why we are waging perpetual war against them. And it's creating a new generation of Russians that resent the West. Putin won't live forever but we will be living with the consequences of this war for decades.
-
Technically, yes we are at war with Russia but not directly. But I agree, Russia isn't a threat to us. It's not at all clear to me why we are waging perpetual war against them. And it's creating a new generation of Russians that resent the West. Putin won't live forever but we will be living with the consequences of this war for decades.
Yes, the old US war hawks never got their Cold War opportunity to fight Russia. Somehow Russia is supposed to be our enemy. The former general on Fox News and numerous establishment politicians keep saying it is a good return on our investment to fund a war in Ukraine in which thousands on both sides are dying. That is as callous a statement as I've ever heard. How is the death of all those people in our national interest? And how is it going? The Ukranian defense minister was just fired. That is like firing your head coach in midseason. Not a sign that things are going well. And the reason had something to do with "corruption." Imagine the money being stolen by the corrupt Ukranian oligarchs. There is no oversight. But we will never know where all the money is going because the US Government refuses to provide any information. Ukraine is so corrupt that even Dirty Hunter made millions there. Where is the effort to find a resolution? There is none. Old Joe is napping at the beach again.
-
Ukraine's summer offensive has been a disaster
-
The honeymoon period is over for President Zelensky:
Poll: Most Ukrainians consider president directly responsible for corruption in government
According to a recent poll published by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, 78% of surveyed Ukrainians believe that the president bears direct responsibility for corruption in the government and regional administrations. Only 18% of respondents disagreed with this statement.
Older Ukrainians seem more demanding of the head of state than the young people, reads the report. The share of respondents who think the president is responsible for corruption ranges from 70% to 81% among people aged 18-29 and those over 60, respectively.
There are no other significant differences in answers depending on the participants’ financial situation or region of residence, the Foundation wrote.
https://kyivindependent.com/poll-most-ukrainians-consider-president-directly-responsible-for-corruption-in-government/
-
"Europe" is checking out while Old Joe advocates for endless war with no solutions.
"Poland's prime minister said his country is no longer sending arms to Ukraine, a comment that appeared aimed at pressuring Kyiv and put Poland's status as a major source of military equipment in doubt as a trade dispute between the neighboring states escalates."
-
The only good news in a long time is that General Milley is retiring. He likely sees the writing on the wall with the upcoming election. The rats are leaving the sinking ship. At a minimum he committed treason by contacting China without proper authorization following Jan. 6. At worst he is a war criminal. He also pitched the idea of invading or attacking Iran to Trump. Fortunately, Trump was the one modern American president who stood up to the military warmongers. Good riddance to him. As the war mongers leave, perhaps there will be more emphasis on bringing the endless war in Ukraine to an end rather than just funding it without any specified plan or objective.
-
The only good news in a long time is that General Milley is retiring. He likely sees the writing on the wall with the upcoming election. The rats are leaving the sinking ship. At a minimum he committed treason by contacting China without proper authorization following Jan. 6. At worst he is a war criminal. He also pitched the idea of invading or attacking Iran to Trump. Fortunately, Trump was the one modern American president who stood up to the military warmongers. Good riddance to him. As the war mongers leave, perhaps there will be more emphasis on bringing the endless war in Ukraine to an end rather than just funding it without any specified plan or objective.
Slovakia just elected a leader who opposes more aid to Ukraine. Poland is talking about slowing or stopping aid to Ukraine due to their domestic political opposition. Ukraine aid was stripped from the recent US budget passed in Congress.
Time isn't on Ukraine's side. They can't count on financial support from Western countries long-term. They will have to find some way to make peace or freeze the conflict.
-
Slovakia just elected a leader who opposes more aid to Ukraine. Poland is talking about slowing or stopping aid to Ukraine due to their domestic political opposition. Ukraine aid was stripped from the recent US budget passed in Congress.
Time isn't on Ukraine's side. They can't count on financial support from Western countries long-term. They will have to find some way to make peace or freeze the conflict.
Find some way to end the conflict. Like Poland should have found some way to end the conflict when Germany and Russia invaded in 1939. Not really practicable advice when an enemy just wants to wipe you our and occupy you.
What is practicable is more spending that matches and more than matches Russia's spending in this war. This is easily achievable. Russia's economy strength is a joke. And this prevents Russia from resuming its western drive, this time through the Baltic States. And discourages China from attacking Taiwan. And every dollar spent on Ukraine is much more efficiently used than the money we spend on our military.
Need to cut government expenses? Fine. Cut our spending on the U. S. Military. And keep up the spending on Ukraine. Those dollars are much more effectively spent.
Should Ukraine continue to suffer? That decision should be left to the Ukrainians, and not any poster on this forum who pretends to care about them but don't. If they want to quit, if they want to try their luck living under the Russians, i won't want to force them to do otherwise. But as long as they want to fight, we should support them.
But that decision needs to be made by the Ukrainians. Not by us because some people claim it would be more humane for them to give up.
-
Find some way to end the conflict. Like Poland should have found some way to end the conflict when Germany and Russia invaded in 1939. Not really practicable advice when an enemy just wants to wipe you our and occupy you.
What is practicable is more spending that matches and more than matches Russia's spending in this war. This is easily achievable. Russia's economy strength is a joke. And this prevents Russia from resuming its western drive, this time through the Baltic States. And discourages China from attacking Taiwan. And every dollar spent on Ukraine is much more efficiently used than the money we spend on our military.
Need to cut government expenses? Fine. Cut our spending on the U. S. Military. And keep up the spending on Ukraine. Those dollars are much more effectively spent.
Should Ukraine continue to suffer? That decision should be left to the Ukrainians, and not any poster on this forum who pretends to care about them but don't. If they want to quit, if they want to try their luck living under the Russians, i won't want to force them to do otherwise. But as long as they want to fight, we should support them.
But that decision needs to be made by the Ukrainians. Not by us because some people claim it would be more humane for them to give up.
No one has suggested that Ukraine quit. If they wish to continue fighting until their country is in complete ruin, that is up to them. The point is that the US should not bankroll an endless war. "Europe" has checked out. The US has already provided Ukraine with three times the entire Russian military budget. How much is enough? How long does the war have to go on? A decade like in Vietnam? Two decades like in Afghanistan and Iraq? The public was told in each of those instances that more time and money would result in some positive outcome. It didn't. Thousands or millions died senselessly. Will Ukraine get a better deal next year than they could get today? In five years? Ten? China does not view this as a deterrent to invading Taiwan. They see the US mired in this conflict and now another in Israel. They know that the US is stretched thin with all these disasters unfolding and that Old Joe is weak and incompetent. They are not going to wait for a strong president like Trump.
-
Unwinnable for both sides at this point.
-
Top story on Wash. Post regarding how the US and Ukraine have bungled the war. Who could have guessed? Old Joe just spent the money for endless war with no clear strategy for winning. Just as long as it takes. Why hasn't that worked? LOL.
-
So with timing for the funding of the endless war in Ukraine running out and the Dems refusing to budge on the open border as a compromise, the FBI, AG, and Dept. of Homeland Security suddenly decide out of the blue to charge some hapless Russian soldiers with a war crime. For allegedly making an American who was living in Ukraine dig a ditch and threatening him back in 2022! Of course, there is no possibility of ever prosecuting this "crime" because they will never gain access to these men. And they don't want them because it likely doesn't rise to such a crime. It is only being done now for propaganda purposes to pressure the effort for more funding but imagine if that same standard for a war crime was applied to the US politicians who have waged endless war for decades. Resulting in millions of dead. Mostly under false pretenses. Every modern president except Donald Trump would have been convicted.
-
Another $200 million to Ukraine but still no plan for ending the endless war. Stalemate will continue indefinitely. Costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives for no purpose. When all is said and done, some compromise today would look no different than however the war ends years from now. The US military contractors are making out like bandits. Old Joe is concerned with Israel, though. And warning them to scale down their effort.
-
The leftist press is in full on anti-Israel mode today. Both the NY Times and Wash Post have briefly paused their non-stop Trump conspiracy attacks with headlines touting the number of deaths in Gaza. Israel is apparently targeting civilians according to the NY Times. The Wash Post indicates that 20,000 are dead (with no context). What of Ukraine? Nothing. The war there must go on and on forever but Israel is supposed to standdown. Hopefully Jewish voters remember how they have been treated by these radical leftists.
Wash Post:
"More than 20,000 dead in Gaza, a historic human toll"
NY Times:
"Israel Bombed Areas Where It Ordered Gaza Civilians to Go, Evidence Shows"
-
Zelensky is following the Biden version of democracy by suspending the upcoming election. Because he has declared martial law, Zelensky doesn't want the people of Ukraine to be able to select their leader by voting in 2024. That is what they used to refer to as being a "dictator." Now he is a warrior for democracy. Democracy being defined apparently as the ability of one political group to control elections to protect their citizens from themselves by selecting the leader of their own choosing. Even Lincoln ran for re-election during the Civil War. But Zelensky apparently can't do that. Why? Does he think he will be defeated? If not, why not have an election? There are so many lies and intentional omissions from our leftist state armed propaganda media. No reporting that Zelensky has suspended the election. Instead we are told this is actually a war to protect democracy.
-
Sounds like Putin gave the Epstein treatment to Navalny. A terrible ending for a heroic figure that resulted, in part, from Old Joe's weakness and mental impairment. None of our enemies have any fear of the incompetents in charge of the US. Meanwhile the endless war rages on in Ukraine with our politicians falling all over themselves to send more billions with no apparent objective or plan. They just want to control the flow of money.
-
Billions wasted or stolen. Tens of thousands dead and cities destroyed. And things are worse off today for Ukraine than when the war began. And what is the plan? There doesn't appear to be one except to spend more money for an endless war. No one ever learns the lessons of history. Funding wars for with no plan for winning is futile. Eventually there will be some type of negotiated settlement. The kind of settlement that could have been reached on the first week of the conflict. Everyone except the military contractors will be worse off for prolonging the suffering.
-
Old Joe is trying to force a ceasefire in Gaza while desperately seeking funding for his endless war in Ukraine. Unreal. He has no plan or policy in either case. He does nothing in the interest of the US because he can't figure out what that even is. He changes direction with the political winds. The radical anti-Semitic leftists are anti-Israel. So whoever is in charge tell Joe to take a stand against Israel.
-
I truly feel sorry for the people of Ukraine who are caught between Putin's aggression, the greed and incompetence of the US politicians, and the disinterest of "Europe." They are being used as cannon fodder by the US establishment to gain access to billions in military contracts to refight the Cold War with no plan for winning or ending the war. The deaths and destruction will go on and on. Perhaps for years or decades. When all is said and done, they will likely not get more than they could get in a good faith negotiation today.
-
Old Joe is sending another $300 million to Ukraine despite not having authorization from Congress. His endless war must go on and on. Even the Vatican is calling for negotiations to end it but there is no profit in that for the military contractors.
-
The state armed US propaganda media machine is in hyper drive this week to criticize the Russian elections. The election is "rigged." The irony abounds. And, of course, at least Russia is having an election. Ukraine, which the propaganda machine tells us is a bastion of democracy, has suspended its election. Unreal. The media does not report this. Meanwhile Dems are raging and trying to interfere with Israel to force an end to that conflict. At the same time, they are frantic to fund the endless war in Ukraine. I wonder why? Old Joe certainly spent a lot of time in Ukraine as VP including an apparently meaningless trip there during his last days as VP. What is his fascination with that country? Ask Dirty Hunter.
-
The average age of the Ukranian front line solder is 43! Zelensky just recently lowered the draft age. Over a million men of draft eligible age have fled the country. It sounds like the final days of WWII with the Germans using the Volkssturm. Not a great sign. Old Joe is not concerned with finding a way to end this war. He only wants Israel to stand down because that war is hurting his poll numbers. He is promising "consequences" against Israel. But Trump, with his Jewish daughter and grandchildren and strong support of Israel, is the antisemite according to our completely unbiased press.
-
In what is probably the least surprising move in politics, the republican establishment is once again caving to the Dems to send more billions to Ukraine. To extend an increasingly futile war instead of pressuring Ukraine to settle this conflict. In so doing, the US is simply increasing the harm done to the people of Ukraine. Why? Does the US have an interest or deep association with Ukraine? No. Is Ukraine a bastion of democracy? No, in fact Zelensky, unlike Putin, canceled the recent election. It's all about the ability of politicians to allocate countless billions to specific military contractors. An enormous source of power and influence for them. That money returns to their campaigns and relatives in a vicious cycle of pay for play. Or in this case war. This is yet another example of why the republicans will most likely lose the 2024 election.