Posted on 02/19/2015 8:25:16 PM PST by rickmichaels
Vladimir Putin’s latest victory in Ukraine is turning into a rout. Having already induced Western leaders to endorse a peace plan that virtually guarantees continued Russian control over parts of two provinces, the Russian ruler ordered a large Ukrainian force holding Debaltseve, a key crossroads in the region, to surrender. His forces, including regular Russian army troops, then assaulted the city in brazen violation of a cease-fire. On Wednesday morning, Ukrainian forces withdrew from Debaltseve under fire, suffering a devastating defeat that will further destabilize the shaky Kiev government of Petro Poroshenko.
Mr. Putin was so pleased that he indulged in some taunting of the Ukrainians. “Of course, it’s always bad to lose,” he said at a news conference Tuesday. “It’s always a hardship when you lose to yesterday’s miners or yesterday’s tractor drivers.” That was another lie, of course — the forces who seized Debaltseve were not former Ukrainian workers but Russian regulars; one Western reporter encountered soldiers who had been dispatched from Siberia.
What about Western leaders, who just last week solemnly declared they would hold Russia accountable if the new deal were violated? All agreed there had been, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman put it, “a massive violation” of the cease-fire agreement. But there was little visible movement toward imposing meaningful consequences. Instead, officials in Brussels echoed a White House statement that said “the costs to Russia will rise” if it “continues to violate” the agreement. That suggested only that additional aggression by Mr. Putin would get a response, maybe.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalpost.com ...
Why Ukrainian puppet regime did not paid for consumed gas to his puppet master, many times declared about intention to join NATO and EU? It is quite strange.
I guess I look at folks such as Ronald Reagan. The USA should never assume an isolation role especially when it comes to Russia or it will come to North America.
Russia is already here; especially in the public school system.
Ok,
So what does that mean?
Come to Russia,
Spend a few bucks,
Then go back to Ukraine so our troops can kill ya?
One, Russia was vastly overcharging for the natural gas and two, they didn’t join NATO.
Russia also has advance "carrier killer" weaponry, including tactical nuclear torpedoes. How many carriers can we afford to lose? This isn't WWII where we were cranking them out of shipyards them by the dozens. We only have ten of them. They are massive national investments and take years to build.
If it becomes a shooting war in that region, no US carrier would ever make it into the Black Sea. Like I said, it is a very narrow entrance from the Med into the Black Sea, easy to block any carrier trying to come through it. With their advanced carrier killer weaponry you mentioned, or whatever.
He built up the most powerful military force in the world and the Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to keep up with the US.
Even had they not gone broke, they would never have dared trying the crap we have seen recently.
We can not fight a war when our country is full of those who would stab us in the back.
Europe is about to find that out.
Assume that ISIS makes good their threat to invade Italy. What do you think the Muslim population will do in Paris, the Scandinavian countries, Brussels, etc.?
Europe will have a war at their front and long knives, AK47’s and car bombs at their backs.
And an under armed military, cops that do not carry guns and pols no better than obummer at the top.
We must not be put in the same position.
Frankly, I hope that ISIS does invade Italy and what happens in Europe will scare the US back to reality.
But instead, I suspect we will send 5 or 10,000 men over to help, under armed and loaded down with rules of engagement that will bleed us to death.
And where exactly did Reagan station a vast amount of weapons and men ... oh yeah ... Europe. My point is Reagan was not an isolationist. He was far from it to contain and stop the Russians.
All of those men stationed in Europe never had to fire a shot.
Why?
Because the US was so powerful and so well armed that no one dared start anything.
On the other hand, obummer has stopped the production of Tomahawk missiles, abandoned nuclear weapon production, scrapped most of the Navy, fired the real fighting generals.....
And appointed known Muslims to many high level jobs, even filling the Pentagon with them, and some of them are not trustworthy.
I have no links on that topic, but it is a subject about which much has been written if you care to do some research.
In fact, there was a pronouncement by a retired general on the subject just the other day.
If we are not careful, we will have more knives at our backs than we can handle.
Ukrainins are coming to Russia not to spend bucks but earn them. Usually 3-5 millions Ukrainian guestworkers were coming to Russia, today they are allowed to stay in Russia for longer than 90 days to evade mobilisation and stay alive
USA is separated from potential enemies with oceans, it is costly business to deliver knives at Americans backs. Rest of the World is in much worse situation.
Oceans?
Between here and Mexico?
They are here already and we are going to bring in more from Syria with the blessing of our dear leader.
Thanks for the info,
I am ignorant on this.
The question before the house is, "Who?"
The Germans gave it a shot in 1941-43 and totally screwed it up. America is far, far away. Russia is right there, and, unlike America and Germany is willing to fight for it.
Not too hard to figure out, is it?
Oh puh-leez!
When and where?
What is this NATO of which you speak?
NATO is a hollow farce, and has been for at least 20 years. There are two military powers in NATO, whose interests in this matter may be opposed to one anothers.
There is zero chance - ZERO - that "NATO" is going to have anything to do with this mess.
The Germans absolutely DO value their freedom, which is why they do not want a rematch with the Bear.
I absolutely accept that they "want" that.
So what?
In addition to "wanting" it, they have to be able to arrange matters so they can have that.
Since they (obviously) can't fight Russia, they can a) Accommodate Russia, b) Ignore Russia, c) Find someone else to do the fighting, or d) Give in.
The truth is that the "Ukrainians" who "don't want" live in Galicia and to a degree the Volhynia, and Russia would undoubtedly be happy to see them go to Europe.
The question turns (again) on Poland and Germany, and Germany has way, way too much at stake to fight Russia when a deal would be so much more in their interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.