The term you are looking for is foreign volunteers. These are not mercenaries, fighting for loot and profit (though, you could certainly characterize some of the private groups fighting for Russia that way). The foreign legion is making next to nothing, has officially joined the Ukrainian military, is subject to its discipline, and would not plausibly switch sides at the offer of more money from the Russians. Those aren’t the characteristics of mercenaries.
The Soviet Union's GDP about quadrupled from Stalin's take over until the start of WWII, but that isn't really even the point. As a citizen of the only major country whose homeland was untouched by either World Wars, and incidentally emerged from both wars with far more gains in national strength than any other major country, you're refusing to even entertain the possibility that devastations of war can make a country weaker. That really tells me all I need to know. Your mind is not open, and there's no point in continuing this conversation.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I can’t let this one go. That was not in fact Stalin’s reaction to the German invasion. His first reaction was denial of the facts and severe anger at the messengers until the evidence of millions of Germans crossing the Russian border and thousands of Soviet aircraft destroyed on the ground was undeniable. Then his reaction was to run and hide in deep depression like a little [insert favorite pejorative epithet for someone displaying unadult, unmanly, unleaderlike behavior] and couldn’t even be dragged to the radio to address his people for days, never mind make any meaningful decisions.
Recently read a history on Stalingrad, now on Kursk, and that consistent with my read. He did rebound, and the “not one inch” order galvanized, along with appealing to pre Bolshevik patriotic sentiments (finally), in combination with some good old Bolshevik “shoot anyone that does otherwise.” And he had an eye for picking military leaders.
And just a reminder on the 207th Anniversary that stopping hegemony changes history, usually for the better
There is no doubt that the U.S. benefited the most from winning WWII. And I agree, that if the USSR were completely overrun, and/or the country was not a dictatorship, they would have had a difficult time recovering. They had a lot of work ahead of them in the late-1940's, but everything was doable as long as the people accepted their dictator and went along with the program. France had a tougher time, as they spent a fair amount of time in the post-war years accusing each other of either assisting the Nazis or sleeping with them. If France had a dictator like Stalin, they could have recovered faster than they did, but with a lower ceiling of what they could achieve. The USSR did come a long way in the 1930's toward industrializing, but those gains were beginning to tail off as people became tired of working for low wages while the high-ranking party members took everything in a corrupt society. Being invaded provided motivation, and actually winning the conflict provided confidence and determination to continue to improve. These positive attitudes lasted a generation or so, and then society began to slowly unravel into apathy and vodka addiction, while the wealthy classes became self-absorbed. Without WWII, I doubt the USSR becomes a superpower. They would maybe rise to the same level as post-war Germany did by the 1970's, but no more. Your mind is not open, however, so there is no point in continuing this conversation.
I absolutely agree that what you say is possible, is your mind open enough to admit that it's also possibly wrong? On a separate note, here's an interview with the two captured US soldiers from a few days ago.
What is your purpose in showing an interview under duress? Surely, you can’t actually believe that anything those men would say is their true feelings on the subject. Starve, beat, and mistreat me enough, and I’ll confess on camera (to channel Reservoir Dogs) that I started the Great Chicago Fire. That doesn’t necessarily make it so.
A little sensitive are we? It's nice to see that they're both alive, for one, and it does provide some information. Their "repentance" for their actions, particularly after the interviewer asked them how they feel about the two British soldiers sentenced to death, are clearly under duress. But their descriptions of what they did before, how they ended up in that particularly unit, and what led to the events that day are probably mostly true.
Ukraine is fighting a grim war of attrition. Only Nato can help change that June 20th, 2022. The War in Ukraine Could Go On for Years. A Left-Wing Terrorist Wins Power in Colombia. War of attrition is now the common phrase being used by military brass, news media and pundits. So what exactly does that mean and how does it change the NATO / US interventions? A war of attrition is nothing more than wearing down your enemy over a long period of time until they relent. This means both militarily (soldiers) and logistically (beans and bullets). NATO and others have been supplying Ukraine with weapons and intelligence. The US has so far delivered / pledged $40 - $60 Billion which is more than any of the allies / NATO have provided. There are several reason for this. One our allies do not have the weaponry or resources to deliver. Fact is our allies are no where near capable of delivering what the US can in terms of money, weapons and troops. The EU having relied on NATO for decades does not have well trained troops let alone the willingness to take on such a task. Negotiations and readiness reports make this point very clear. Two Ukraine does not have the trained forces or money to carry put a war of attrition. News reports and statements from Ukrainian officials concerning the loss of troops and lack of weapons serve as validation. Nor does Ukraine have the expertise to use advanced weaponry let alone maintain them. In short the American tax payer will be fighting this war by proxy without any significant aid from allies. How much the US has provided Ukraine at this point is murky. So far the US has provided weapons and money totaling from $40 to $60 Billion that has been delivered / pledged. Yet the major issue of trained Ukrainian troops remains unresolved. Russia has the manpower and weapons to continue this war for years to come. Ukraine does not. As the war continues we are facing shortages in food, electronic and energy supplies. Europe more so than anywhere else. Germany's answer is to fire up the coal plants others do have such luxuries. Food shortages on the other hand present a global problem that does not have an immediate solution. Short of a diplomatic solution this war will not end any time soon nor will the shortages of global necessities such as food and electronics. Is the US willing to boots on the ground? I think not nor are our NATO allies. On a final note what is difference between Russia and the US when it comes to protracted wars? The major difference is Russia invades and occupies as do others of non-democratic political philosophies. The democratic nations of NATO and others do not take an occupational stand but choose to destroy and let nations rebuild hoping their politics will change. Time after time history has proven this approach is doomed to fail.
Mini “terminator” robots are being pitched into Ukraine’s bloody battles against Russian assault troops, The Mirror can reveal. The armed war machines - fitted with a 7.62 assault machine gun and running on wheels- is already believed to be on the frontline. Ukraine company Temerland has prototyped the metallic killer on wheels to be used on scouting missions against Moscow’s invasion forces. It is understood the first version of the 110lb in weight and two foot long drone called a GNOM is controlled by troops who can be hidden hundreds of feet away. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mini-terminator-robots-pitched-ukraines-27281418
Good article on the HIMARS that we’re sending and when in service, the logistic issues of supporting them. Ukraine Update: Not enough? Here's the challenge of moving even four HIMARS
Reads like a Russian plea to withdraw our support. I think you are vastly overstating their depth. They are pullung 1950s tanks out of storage and are running short of willing troops. Russia should remain excluded from the trade and banking system until they leave Ukraine and pay reparations. Cessation of hostilities should not mean cessation of economic consequences
If someone believes contrition expressed by POWs under duress, then I don't think he needs any more propaganda.
Some people remember Afghanistan and the 20 years Russia spent in the region. The US spent 10 years in the region. Of course Ujraine is nothing like Afghanistan but to assume the tactics of Russia are an overstatement with regards to Ukraine is folly. Western leaders warn war in Ukraine could last years British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged the international community to maintain its support for Ukraine as it fights to fend off Moscow's invasion, warning it is nearly impossible to tell when the conflict will come to an end.
I could see this running in cycles: 2014 Putin grabs Crimea, followed by a simmering battle in eastern Ukraine as Pro Russian forces take parts of Donbas. 2022: Russia grabs some more territory, holds it as a battle of attrition persists. Putin sows discord in what is left of Ukraine, tries to fracture the west, and bides his time. After a few years pass by and the political climate in the west and US shift, Putin grabs another chunk of Ukraine (probably makes a hard push for Odessa to render Ukraine land-locked), rinse and repeat. Probably not the week long blitz to take Kyiv, topple the gov't and effectively take all of Ukraine quickly, instead more of a long game.
I see it differently as long as oil, mineral and food shortages remain a thorn in the side of Europe, Ukraine and the US Russia will continue down the road of war by attrition. The long game is economic demise and malcontent between the allied (NATO) forces. When these factors converge on the populations of the allied forces one of two things will happen. Either NATO forces and the globe relent or we see WW III. The latter will serve to exasperate current circumstances making them much worse than they currently are.
