Posted on 05/24/2022 3:11:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
As I returned from Ukraine a few days ago after my first post-COVID reporting trip and after a couple days of letting my aging bones resume their proper position after the trauma of 10 hours in an economy-class airline seat, I do believe I have gained some insight into the logistics of this conflict after all.
Which I have to say I initially doubted.
During those three weeks in Ukraine, I was present for missile attacks in two cities, sat wide-eyed through dozens of artillery barrages, spent hours discussing the war with a wounded Ukrainian soldier on a 17 hour train ride from Lviv to Dnipro in a small train cabin, visited with serving members of the Ukrainian army, photographed many wrecked buildings in the eastern part of the country and ate borscht so many times that I believe I can now identify the recipe differences between Dnipro and Lviv.
Photos by the author
Before I begin, let me establish a couple of things as a reference point for my views.
First, of course Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine, that is a given.
The loss of life is horrific.
I fully support the Ukrainian people in their efforts to expel what are called there the “Russian Occupiers.” (Tellingly, Russian soldiers are now being referred to as “Orcs” by younger Ukrainians.)
But the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is a long one, and it is much more complex than we as outsiders can ever imagine. I had a three-hour conversation with a Polish computer technician named Vasily who sat next to me on the plane out of Warsaw about this exact issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This article makes a fundamental mistake. He argues that if Russia had wide aims it would have used air power to take out core Ukrainian infrastructure.
The truth is Russia has no ability to do so. They did not and cannot take out Ukrainian air defences and have never been able to operate safely over ground they do not control.
Is that you authoring that article, Zelensky??
Actually, it reads more like an admiration of Russia and completely defends Putin, in terms of not waging a “real” war.
In truth, not using tactical nuclear weapons is showing restraint, along with not hitting key infrastructure points, as described in the article, especially when Russian forces were right there to have done so.
I guess the author is too young to remember the Euromaidan coup and the Obama administration’s role in it.
The Russians took out Uke air defenses on day 1.
You forgot to write /s after that ridiculous sentence.
I don’t know what drugs some here are on, but this article seems to be about right regarding this war. I do think that after Russian objectives on the ground in Russian-speaking areas are met, then they may start turning up the heat a bit in Western Ukraine, as they won’t have to worry as much about trying to protect the people in that part of the country.
Are you saying Russia can’t blow up or bomb bridges?
Really?
Why should Putin be judged harshly for being irredentist? Many people through history have sought to reunite the lost territories of their countries (the way they saw things). Venezuela claims half of Guyana. Argentina the Falkland Islands. China has border disputes with all 17 neighboring countries. Palestinians dispute the legal basis of Israel. There’s Greater Bulgaria, Greater Serbia, Greater Albania. And I could go on.
The reason Putin and all other irredentists should be judged harshly is because there will never be an end to war with this kind of thinking.
Is there an alternative to irredentism?
We in the U.S. have the alternative. It is self-determination. In the Declaration of Independence, we put it this way: governments gain their just powers from the consent of the governed.
There are problems with self-determination. For example, what about minorities?
In principle, individuals should be free to leave countries from which they are alienated, but where are they supposed to go? This is an argument for homelands. Russia, to protect Russian minorities in other countries, should act as a homeland. If ethnic Russians feel alienated, they can “make return” to Russia. Concern for the ill-treatment of Russian minorities in other countries doesn’t mean you have to invade those other countries.
Moving from the abstract to the specific: The vote in Ukraine for independence in 1991 was overwhelming. Crimea and Stevastopol had small majorities of the votes cast for independence. All other federal subjects had large majorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
“The Russians took out Uke air defenses on day 1.”
You obviously know nothing about this war.
Tell me what capabilities the Russian air force had to that allowed them to take out all the Ukrainian S-300s?
(Hint, they have no such ability, which is why most of the S-300s are still operating and denying Russia the ability to use the air over Ukraine)
Let me be specific, You saying "In truth, not using tactical nuclear weapons is showing restraint" is a ridiculous statement.
“Are you saying Russia can’t blow up or bomb bridges?”
Russia has a limited supply of precisions guided weaponry, and a lack of air superiority prevents them from getting close enough to use dumb bombs.
So they can blow up some bridges, but they do not have the ability to launch a systematic attack on Ukrainian infrastructure.
The U.S. is a signatory to the Budapest Agreement concerning Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons. Should Russia use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, we would have an obligation to defend Ukraine. Putin, the little bully, is having a difficult enough time dealing with Ukraine. He does not want to deal with us.
This would obviously have repercussions, but even our own government, along with others, and plenty of 3rd parties also say this is a step Russia could easily take, if truly at war.
That agreement only states Ukraine can ask us for help, not that anything will be done.
It is not a defense treaty.
Looking at the maps of areas Russia has been during this incursion into Ukraine, there are a large number of bridges that were not taken out.
In fact, have any bridges been taken out? If not, that shows real restraint.
Putin is hopefully still rational and would never use nukes.
How many a-bombs did we drop on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Nukes are a useful strategic weapon, but they have never made much sense as tactical ones.
Plus Putin needs above all else to keep Xi onside. What does he think of nukes? Putin loses the support of China and his regime is over in a week.
“The truth is Russia has no ability to do so. They did not and cannot take out Ukrainian air defences and have never been able to operate safely over ground they do not control.”
I have a different theory which requires a good tinfoil hat. This isn’t about Russia and Ukraine. This is about tanking the global economy so the Oligarchs, the US State Department and various corrupt business leaders can take control of a one world government.
Russia could have flattened Ukraine in less time than it took the US to roll into Iraq back in the Stormin Norman days. They could have massed thousands of tanks, planes and just leveled the place. They didn’t do it for a reason. Question is why didn’t they?
Answer? This is a false flag operation which gave the US and allies in NATO an excuse to accuse Russia of destroying the economies while our leftist leaders destroy the US. We are going to be a two class society with the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer and the middle class paying for it, to eventually becoming poor themselves.
How do I know this? I’m considered middle class and already lost 60% of my portfolio, can’t afford to fill up my tank, my wife is on the verge of losing her business and in little more than three months, all the school loans restart.
Only saving grace for me is I have no credit card debt or car payments. No mortgage, and only some medical bills which accumulated during the deductible period. And they are only getting a few bucks a month.
There are other potential reasons for Russia's "restraint" in the war.
1. They do not have the armor and infantry capability to occupy the country if they tried to do so.
2. They tremendously underestimated the Ukrainian willingness to fight.
3. They are unwilling to destroy what they want to conquer.
4. Destroying the bridges mentioned destroys Russian ability to cross the river at will.
5. Russia is unwilling to take the military losses necessary to conquer all of Ukraine.
We simply do not know how much of the above is true.
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.