The statements by the Russians and Russian sycophants bear a striking similarity to the statements from Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf otherwise known as "Baghdad Bob" during the US invasion of Iraq. As far as Bakhmut is concerned in the end the Russians may very well end up in control of the city in what will be much more of a symbolic victory than a militarily significant one achieved through a huge cost in Russian lives.
I also found it really strange that I had no idea how to spell pyrrhic. I always spelled it pyrhic and have never been corrected or counted off for it. I guess this would be off topic, lol.
Both. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. It would be symbolic in the sense that it would give Russia the opportunity to claim success in war largely considered a failure as well Pyrrhic especially under the classic definition of the term i.e. a a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.
Using exports as levers of political advantage are implemented by all nations the US included. The US uses the so called favored nations for global trade. I would expect all nations to do the same. This is nothing new. When this war is said and done it will take decades for Ukraine to recover and become economically stable. The US as well as other nations are more than capable of mining and producing rare metals and steel yet we choose to import these items mainly from China as does the rest of the globe. The US involvement during the Russian Afghanistan war supplied arms to the mujahiddin that produced Osama Bin Laden and we all know how that one turned out. Tell what exactly did the US want from Afghanistan after Russia pulled out and the US decided to put troops there? Seems to me if that were the over arching case we should have never gotten involved in Afghanistan is the first place as it was mission accomplished when Russia pulled out. Afghanistan didn't invade other nations to my knowledge.
Clearly you are not paying attention to everything I have posted in this thread and I don't get a dime out of any this. As for the term quisling (some one who serves as the puppet of an enemy) I have no dog in this fight until it comes the shores of the US to members of NATO which it clearly has not nor will it. I have zero allegiance to Putin or Zelensky for that matter. I have but one allegiance and that is to the US. Does it mean I have to swallow US propaganda, hegemony and hypocrisy because I owe my allegiance to the US? Absolutely not. To your last point about any revenue this board receives I get zilch for my participation.
So your myopia is more of the Neville Chamberlain type. Good to know. And you are more of what Stalin called useful Americans.
As I recall Neville Chamberlain didn't have a line that should not be crossed. Americans do and that line is crossed by attacking members of NATO. As a useful American that is where I draw that line concerning the Ukraine / Russian war.
more explosions of oil storage facilities far from the front lines. A Russian oil depot caught fire hundreds of miles from Ukraine, the possible result of a daring Ukrainian drone attack (msn.com) Neither Ukrainian nor Russian authorities verified the incident as an attack, though Russian outlets said drones were seen near the oil facility, run by government-controlled oil giant Rosneft. But an expert told Insider that Ukraine has the equipment to carry out such a strike. Similiar strikes, such as two on Russian air fields in December, have been attributed to Ukraine. Local authorities said that the fire, at Tuapse oil depot on the Black Sea coast, spread to an area of around 200 meters square before being put out at around 3 a.m. local time. Tuapse is roughly 300 miles from the nearest Ukrainian-held territory as the crow flies. State news agency RIA Novosti said a drone had been seen overhead, while popular Telegram channels such as Baza and Face of War claimed that two drones struck the site.
Why do you think it will take decades to rebuild Ukraine? It's far less ravaged than the world was in 1945. Russia will likely be the nation to suffer more and may never "recover". I don't see the Mujahideen / Ukraine analogy as being very equivelant. There will certainly be unintended consequences - as there are in any human endeavor, but the differences in these two cases are striking, and the actions that are likely to happen after this conflict will be just as different. We didn't decide to put troops in Afghanistan till more than 10 years after Russia left. I'm not sure what your point is here.
So Russia can take any nation as long as they aren’t in nato. You honestly think this is a good idea? Unbelievable.
Stalin by the way used the term useful idiot. I switched it to American to avoid calling you an idiot. Oh well.
The reply has nothing to do with equivalence. I simply pointed out we found ourselves in Afghanistan after the Russian troops left when the objective was to remove the Russian troops by supplying Afghanistan with weapons. Russia left mission accomplished.
And you believe the US has carte blanche to interfere in other nations political problems as we have done through out the years? We can send in the CIA and black ops to start revolutions and cause civil wars any where any time we want. We have been meddling in Ukraine for decades and to believe we are the noble savior to me is unbelievable.
We can certainly trade barbs and question one's sensibilities. Surely you can see how others would view your position as one of being an American idiot. This however does nothing to resolve the issues between Russia and Ukraine.
Tell what exactly did the US want from Afghanistan after Russia pulled out and the US decided to put troops there? Seems to me if that were the over arching case we should have never gotten involved in Afghanistan is the first place as it was mission accomplished when Russia pulled out. The U.S. did nto "occupy" Afghanistan (militarily) after Russia pulled out. Regarding why the U.S. went "in" perhaps you may have forgotten - 9/11/2001.
We have not always been on the side of the angels but Putin is the most serious threat to world peace in close to 80 years. Perhaps comparing your attitude to Lindbergh would make you happy. He was an American hero whose political ideas were silly.
