We’ll just blame the Ukrainians for leaving bodies on the table. Similar to Afghanistan where the rationalization for defeat was, “Well, we tried to help but they wouldn’t fight.”
Now that we’ve established that Putin is restrained, in a way Western leaders are not, what is it that makes him mad, in a way Western leaders are not ?
I agree that could happen eventually, but I don’t have the first clue why you would think that would happen next. Odesa is a long ways from where any Russian troops are, particularly relative to the current Russian advance, which is glacial. Russia can only take or even surround Odesa by a major breakthrough, which they have not been capable of and has been inconsistent with their tactics, or amphibious/airborne assault, which would be even more problematic. The Russian main target appears to be Kharkiv, but that is slow-go and bloody, given the kind of tactics Russia is forced to use with sequential arms, artillery saturation, etc. I think on the current trajectory, Russia will take Kharkiv at terrible human cost to their forces, and the only question is whether or not Zelensky has learned anything from Avdiivka and will let his forces trade space for time and casualties (as his generals counseled) instead of treating every piece of terrain like death ground. But I fail to see how Odesa is even on the table right now, and I can’t fathom what you’re seeing that you would even suggest that.
2+ years in and it has STILL not dawned on armchair generals that while the West is fixated on territorial gains, Russia is patiently focused on attrition of Ukrainian fighters and their Western weapons. See: recent Abrams losses.
Kharkiv would be a major deal. Second largest city in Ukraine. If you’re correct, Kharkiv is still a massive loss for Ukraine when they don’t have to lose it if they go to the table now. Odesa is in play too, because as Zelenskyy alludes to, retreat will begin to be the name of the game and Russians will exploit that to make crucial strategic gains before Z finally comes to his senses and is forced to the table by the West. You must agree by now that without western aid, the situation can and probably will capitulate quite quickly for Ukrainian forces. Losses could happen more rapidly. Look how quickly Russia took Kharkiv the first go round. Ukraine is on its last leg. Breakdowns on the front line can occur more rapidly. We both know GOP aren’t going to budge because of the impending election. The responsible thing to do is to push Z to strike a deal now while Ukraine still holds that strategic port.
Not for nothing, Ukraine is building heavy fortifications around Kyiv. The script has flipped. Last year Ukraine launched its massive counter-offensive that ended in catastrophe. Now they’re very much on the defensive. Will the Russians repeat Ukraine’s mistake of 2023 ? I doubt it. I suspect it will continue to patiently attrit, attrit, attrit. That said, it may force mass evacuation, of civilians, then pulverize Ukrainian fortifications with increasingly massive glide bombs. I suspect that rebuilding is a foregone conclusion.
If Ukraine is completely dependent on America’s help, lest it collapses, then it is no longer Ukraine’s war, but rather America’s war …
I can't think of one exchange where I've lost. You are one of the two most ignorant and delusional posters on this thread. And that's why most of the other posters have you on "ignore". You seem to believe that arrogance will make up for your ignorance. You have been dominated and dismissed.
No one in their right mind thinks that Putin is restrained. Invading a neighbor for no other reason than conquest is not restrained behavior. The only restraint he's shown is an unwillingness to use nuclear weapons, which is the same restraint that western leaders have shown since 1945. I really don't give a damn what makes Putin mad. I expect him to control his desire to develop an empire on the backs of his neighbors, just like everyone else in the civilized world. This is not the 1700's. He has the largest country in the world and plenty of resources--there is no need to steal more land and resources. NATO was never a threat to Russia, as long as Russia behaved as a civilized nation. Why would the most powerful member of NATO (the U.S.) help rebuild Russia after its economy collapsed in the early 1990's, if NATO was a threat to Russia? Try to think before you post.
I do think the Russians including Putin fear the US and NATO far beyond the threat level we actually are.
Like I said, you can't come up with 1 example of where you prevailed. Give me 1 example. You can't. People put me on "ignore" don't want to hear the truth because it causes mental amguish/cognitive dissonance. Aren't you the guy who said the sanctions on Russia weakened their economy? Debunked. Didn't you claim that the Ukraine military didn't target civilians in Donetsk? They've been doing that for almost a decade. You had no idea there was an 7+ year civil war going on in Ukraine when the war started. You had no idea the Ukrainians were going to invade the Donbas and kill thousands of Russian-speakers. Didn't you think France didn't have a military industrial complex (or much of one)? France is the ,#2 arms exporter in the world and they want to leverage the Ukraine war to rearm Europe. I wouldn't argue if you want to say France is #3, it's close between France and Russia. You can't even figure out why you hated Putin so much. You think Reagan never said the Russian economy should be integrated with that of Western Europe? You don't know your history. You said the great Eurasian reporter Pepe Escobar was a liar. Give 1 example You can't. You make stuff up. You say I make stuff up but you can't provide 1 example of me doing so. Not one.l. At least you figured out what to say when Ukraine is finished off: "Ukraine would have won if we kept giving them weapons." At this point I'm the Orca playing with a seal named chemgator.
Not a single nation moved eastward with a single soldier. NATO let a few countries into its club, which happens to be a defensive club. Never has NATO attacked another nation in an attempt to conquer it, subjugate it, or take natural resources. The U.S. is perfectly willing to regard Russia as an equal, if it becomes successful economically (worthy of trading with) and does what it can to promote world peace. Russia has done neither. They simply demand respect for having a large military and being willing to use it. They are thugs and barbarians, according to their behavior in the last few years. I see no need for the U.S. to show respect to thugs and barbarians. It says a lot about you that you think we should. Respect has to be earned.
expand... “as long as Russia behaved as a civilized nation.” And there you have it. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was to be regarded as a naughty schoolchild and a manipulable underling. And to what end ? Decades of open antagonism has had the effect of turning a husk of a nation into a peer military power and an effective counter-balance in an ever-shifting world of diminishing American influence.
24 countries and 1,000 km to the East. Russia moves four oblasts to the West and it’s Hitler 2.0 The U.S. is a bitter aging dowager.
I think that's only true of Putin and Russia's leadership class. I think the average Russian doesn't fear the U.S. Many have emigrated here. They have the largest country in the world. During peaceful times, I don't think most Russians think very much about what goes on beyond their own borders. They have enough ethnic strife and other problems to keep them occupied.
It is truly the epitome of ignorance to not know the difference between a peaceful, defensive organization and a marauding militaristic nation. NATO did not use force to "move eastward". I suppose if the rich guy down the street from you bought the house two doors down from you, you would invade your neighbor's house, kill all the occupants (after opening a torture center in the basement), burn the house down, and poison the grounds. Just to make sure the rich guy didn't get any ideas about buying the house next to yours.
Wow. You really are ignorant. Russia started the antagonism when they kept ALL of eastern Europe as satellite countries with puppet governments after WWII. How many satellite countries and puppet governments did the U.S. or Britain set up in Europe after WWII? Russia continued the antagonism during the Korean War when they put Russian pilots in Russian jet aircraft (with North Korean markings) and shot down U.S. pilots in U.S. jet aircraft. How many times did the U.S. use U.S. troops to fire on Russian troops when we disagreed with something their military did? Russia earned the antagonistic behavior from the free world. They often could not compete economically, so they decided to compete militarily and became killers and conquerors. It's what barbarians do. The free world did not force Russia to become killers and conquerors. They chose to do that on their own. Earning the respect of other countries with their economic output and support of peaceful initiatives was not considered.
