Posted on 03/18/2014 5:28:37 AM PDT by McGruff
You're a funny guy.
You ask, "....if they wish to defend it in the manner of their choosing.."
A suicide mission isn't a defense..ask the Japs..the few that survived, on any Pacific island. It's NOT a defense. Period.
I'd likely trade land/space for time...pull them all back..see what happens.
Funny how?
Priceless.
You are noble.
The thing about wars, is that the guy that jumps on the grenade are heroes. The guys that put up the last stand are heroes.
We will award them. We will honor them. We will make movies about their sacrifice.
But, they will not be around tomorrow to fight the Russians. It is a cold fact of war.
If they retreat and Russia takes the Russian provinces, it stops for a while. During that break, Ukraine makes a plea for membership in NATO. We put missiles back in Poland.
We talk tough for a couple of years.
Everyone lives.
I know they won’t make a movie about it, but the long term story plays out better.
Agreed...but the idea is to have less tombstones than the other guy.
Thanks for answering. I’m sure you’d agree that it’s a difficult decision to cede your territory and your countrymen in exchange for a perceived advantage later.
A suicide defense, as you call it, IS a defense. It may not always be the wisest one, but it is an option. For the Iwo Jimas or Okinawas of the Japanese, there is also a Thermopylae, an Alamo, an Admin Box at Kohima, a Chosin Reservoir or a Bastogne.
I don’t suggest we’d see one in Ukraine. But I do suggest that if the government decides to attempt to hold its territory, I wouldn’t begrudge them that right.
If the Mexicans there voted for it, the answer is YES. It’s what can happen if a country is over-run by unassimilated invaders. By my logic, if Maine, Texas or Vermont (as examples) want to vote to leave the US, they should be able to do that.
The only time a “suicide” retreat is “meaningful” is if they are covering the retreat of a much larger force and their equipment.
Of course, if you are stuck on an island and there are no boats coming to get you, there is not much choice.
Its Russian because Stalin shot, starved or sent millions to Siberia creating a population vacumn that he then send ethnic Russians into fill......
Without the support of the locals, even an irregular action will not work.
And we are not generally talking about the “Soviets” now. My guess is that a Russian annexation will not result in a blood bath the likes of which the Ukrainians are historically subjected to.
Do not misunderstand me...I am not suggesting that what Russia is doing is good or reasonable. I think it is criminal and illegal.
But no one is going to kick them out. At least not now.
However, if you are going to march on Moscow, it is better to wait until June. Its way too muddy. Just make sure you are done by the end of September.
Sometimes “Might Makes Right”....It has always been, and always will be...no matter what some pie in the sky pacifist may say.
That's no defense.
Uhhhh...Crimea was Russian from the time of Catherine the Great. Before that, Turkish. Before that, Venetian.
There's the key take away.
Thermopylae and the Alamo are two examples of a holding defense. In the former, the Spartans/Greeks held the Persians while the rest of Greece got their act together.
The Alamo was an example of holding out too long for rescue. Again, in the hopes that Houston would get his troops together.
They were both noble. Their heroes are equally dead.
There is no one coming to the rescue of the Ukrainians.
There is no “need” or “reason” for heroes.
And while Putin is a dictator, there is no indication his troops are, or will, behave badly when they are facing a retreating army.
The ability to save men and equipment to fight another day is paramount in this situation.
I would be the ratio of Ukrainian soldiers who really want to get it on with the Russian army is in the 1-5% range. You know, the same percentage of crazy people in any large organization.
Yes, and the Americans didn’t march in lockstep in open fields to get slaughtered. Which would be today’s equivalent of using tanks and trenches. They fought unconventionally. Thats the whole point. Tanks and trenches are guaranteed losers.
Agreed.
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.