I don't mean to pile on Cape - A very intelligent poster but we are on opposite sides on this one. And yes G8tr - My impression is he is advocating non engagement or non interference. This of course is a complete kow-tow to Putins militiristic aggression. Myself I see consequences DOWN THE ROAD if the USA does not respond. I justify this comment given Putins military aggression in Syria, Georgia, and Chechnya. He's not going to stop. Next up: Estonia, latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Sweden.
I stand corrected. The KH 22 is accurate at sea but is not accurate in urban environments. They have hit apartment buildings, train stations, and shopping centers to name a few civilian targets Russian strike toll: 45 dead civilians, including 6 children | AP News The Kh-22 was designed during Soviet times to strike enemy ships. It can also be used against ground targets, but with much less precision. Observers have said that Russia has increasingly used older weapons, including those intended for other purposes, to attack targets in Ukraine in what could be a sign of the depletion of Russian stockpiles of modern precision weapons. The U.K. ministry noted that the Kh-22 “is notoriously inaccurate when used against ground targets as its radar guidance system is poor at differentiating targets in urban areas,” suggesting that might have been a factor in the deaths in the Dnipro.
Capitalism survives whether Ukraine does or not and from my point of view the US wants to control trade as well. To suggest China or Russia would control trade is just as myopic as the US wanting to control trade. Wheat for thee and none for me? Funny how that olive oil still shows up on the shelves of grocery stores across the globe. As far as expansion is concerned that expansion includes Africa which the US has ignored for decades. Why is that? The hope was to make the America's North, Central and South America the largest capitalist conglomerate on the planet. It failed miserably as will any attempts by Russia or China to accomplish such a feat.
And you believe had Putin taken Kyiv he would have all of Ukraine? I think not nor do I think Putin held any such belief. He went after Zelensky. Had that been accomplished there is no doubt in mind negotiations would have commenced immediately.
I don't consider it a pile on at all and there will always be differences in opinions. I appreciate the dialog and whether we want to admit it or not there are major implications concerning NATO / US involvement at this point in time. All sides should be heard and all options should be weighed well in advance of making a decision to go all in which is where we are headed. To that end tell me what is the US currently doing to assuage your fears about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Sweden? Would those fears be assuaged in the event of Ukrainian victory? Somehow I think not.
As if the US hasn't installed our puppet regimes? I'll grant that might have been a pie in the sky goal but I doubt that would have been accomplished? If that were the goal he would sent in more than a handful of troops and had troops positioned to move in at a moments notice.
Both sides are quite expert at setting up puppets. S Vietnam being a example of a particularly bad set of puppets on the Western side. Again, for me it's a pros and cons argument. From my perspective Russian points don't add up to support a military invasion that's reasonable on the surface. Nor was the Ukrainian military a threat to invade Russia pre Feb 2022. For me Russia is the aggressor. Case closed.
I am not a tanker, but in my opinion the tanks will be helpful but not decisive. I don’t think there is any one thing we could realistically give the Ukrainians that would result in decisive victory.
You'll get no argument from me concerning Russia being the aggressor. That is not what is in dispute. Why Russia turned to aggression and Putin's arguments for doing so are the more salient questions? Putin was ignored and given short shrift concerning his complaints with regards to Ukraine. One has to wonder why a diplomatic resolution was all but absent.
I believe that their current systems have limited reach and they are seeking longer range to force russian logistical hubs further from the Front US still holds back long-range ATACMS missiles from Ukraine
Ah, ATACMS. I don’t think you’ll see that happen for a couple of reasons. The first is strictly political; they would absolutely use them to strike targets in Russia. I don’t blame them, but the Biden Administration cannot risk it. The second is logistical. I don’t think we have an overwhelming number of those things, and they are really expensive. When a division goes into the fight, doctrinally I think they carry less than five of them, and that division doesn’t even get to decide where, when, or why to use them; corps-level HQ or higher directs the division when to fire and at what. I don’t think we have used one for real in combat. It could be an excellent opportunity to field test if we could get the Ukrainians only to shoot them where and when we say.
There is a huge difference between inserting yourself into another country and keeping that country as your own, or even as a vassal state that pays tribute to you (one way or the other). How many times in recent decades has the U.S. kept other countries that it has had disputes with and invaded? Did we keep Iraq or Afghanistan? Russia, OTOH, has kept Belarus as a vassal state (when Russia says "jump", Belarus says "how high?"). Belarus uses its hospitals to perform surgery on injured Russian troops, because Russia wants to hide their numbers of casualties. When they were the Soviet Union, they kept all of eastern Europe as vassal states. The USSR may have ordered the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II through vassal state Bulgaria. Maybe that doesn't bother you.
