Well, yes, the Russians would just say they choose not to escalate the situation there by engaging aircraft that might be American. After all, the enemy they’re fighting in Syria definitely don’t have fixed wing, so any unidentified are problematic to engage one way or another. Over Ukraine the matter is entirely different. Russia would be wholly within its rights to engage any unidentified aircraft, assuming it is Ukrainian.
In the 60’s the US sent supplies to South Vietnam. Then they placed advisors in South Vietnam. Then they sent weapons to South Vietnam. Then they sent troops en masse to South Vietnam. There are hints, at least, that the US is following that trend line in Ukraine.
Russia has also deployed advanced S-300 and S-400 air-defense batteries but has not given them to the Syrians; instead, they are manned by Russian forces. They have yet to be used against Israeli pilots due in part to the ongoing safety mechanisms in place between Jerusalem and Moscow. Iran has used advanced air defense batteries against Israel in Syria
An Alternate Reality: How Russia's State TV Spins the Ukraine War Thanks Tucker. Freakin russophile.....
Russians are undoubtedly better informed than Americans. They get their news - and sometimes grouse about it - and they get our news too.
I don't know what alternate reality you live in where you think JOE BIDEN, of all people, is going to proactively send US forces into Ukraine barring something CRAZY happening.
I didn’t think the demented old fart would go as far as he has. But clearly the neocons have his ear, not so much the Pentagon which is much more cautious about escalation.
it alllll still comes back to Vietnam. It’s coming up on 60 yrs ago when our first troops landed in Vietnam. More relevant maybe we can go back 85 years and review how world leaders wanted to appease hitler. “We can work with hitler, he won’t go any further”
Not sure if true, but Ukraine certainly thinks Russia is going to attack Kyiv again in the spring with 200,000 men. Because they believe this they have actually been a bit more resaved recently in their strategy, to hold back some forces for defense. Interesting - wonder if it's true or if they just want more support? Ukraine's military is certain Russia will attack Kyiv again between January and the spring. Ukraine update: 'A tsar tells them to go to war, and they go … Russian mobilization has worked' Here are a couple of different free links discussing it - came from an economist interview which is behind a pay wall I'm pretty sure. EDIT - here is actual discussion of how this may look more realistic based on current russian troop movements. These guys really do a good job on this. Ukraine Invasion Day 295: the winter months will increase the pace of operations
Larry C. Johnson, great source: 2008 - Spread a hoax about Michelle Obama complaining about 'whitey.' Said there was a video tape. It wasn't true 2013 - Claimed an audiotape confirmed that John Kerry had raped 'some poor Vietnamese woman,' that Kerry said 'I personally raped for pleasure.' The tape was a fake - spliced together from bits of different interviews. He deleted his article but didn't apologize. 2017 - Claimed that a British intelligence agency had wiretapped Trump during the campaign. Fox went with the story, but then had to disavow it. Larry C. Johnson - Wikipedia
Hell, I’m glad I haven’t had any wild misses in my tenure. This is the fruit of propaganda. When accosted by countervailing evidence first employ “Some self-published dude” defense. If source is former US government or military, see if you can find some dirt. Before you read the analysis.
Russia outdoes itself with children's torture centers. Just when you think Russia can't get any more depraved, they sink lower in their barbarian behaviors. Children's torture chambers found in liberated territories
One difference is that LBJ was completely committed from Day 1 to not allowing communism to spread to another country in Asia on his watch. He would do whatever it took to prevent that, so escalation was inevitable. Another difference is that the militaries on the ground in Vietnam were perceived to be fairly primitive compared to the U.S. military, and LBJ could not foresee the Chinese and Russians getting involved as proxy suppliers of weapons systems. He must have thought the risk of any significant numbers of casualties was very low. And Vietnam was a country that mostly hated its own leadership, which was willing to kill Buddhists (85% of the population) because the leaders were rabidly intolerant Catholics, and LBJ did not understand this. LBJ made a lot of ignorant miscalculations on that one. Ukraine has a foreign enemy, not a domestic one, and there is little doubt that Ukrainians (and many ethnic Russians) are 100% behind Ukraine in this fight. It's not about political ideology. And while Russia is an inferior opponent, it is still moderately dangerous (and still a large army), so the U.S. knows to expect significant casualties if they were involved in a ground war. For the short term, there is no need to consider U.S. involvement other than weapons supply. Longer term, it would be a major decision to get the U.S. military directly involved. It would probably have to be based on a Russian attack on U.S. soil.
Yeah - I don't get the vietnam comparisons at all. In the current drama, Russia is the one invading a foreign country to stop the political influence of others. So really, Russia is the US in this scenario. US is taking the role of China and Russia from the vietnam war and just dumping weapons and watching the Russians kill off thousands of their young men...
