THERE IS NO SINGLE WAR IN UKRAINE AND NATO IS IN TROUBLE

Sonar 21 ^ | 11 October 2022 | Larry Johnson

[jpsb]

Putin is not Hitler and it is ridiculous to claim he is.

[alexander_busek]

I guess a country that cannot even provide toilets for large blocs of it’s its people really is stuck in the last century.

Excellent post!

I despise Biden, and think it highly significant that Putin didn't try this on Trump's watch - but Biden's incompetence is irrelevant to the fact that Russia's invasion is a blatant violation of international law.

Regards,

[BroJoeK]

"Putin is not Hitler and it is ridiculous to claim he is."

It's insane to claim he's not!
Clearly Putin's a madman bent on reasserting the old Russian Empire by conquering his smaller neighbors.
He has no legitimate claims to any of them --none, zero, nada -- and yet behaves as if he did.

That is insanity on a Hitlerian level.

The world (i.e., China) is chock full of little Hitlers just waiting for western democracies to weaken enough to make them successful.

Putin is only one of them.

[jpsb]

You do know don’t you that Catherine the Great took the Crimea from the Ottoman Empire in 1783. Ever since then it has either been Russian or Soviet(1918-1992) except for a brief period when it was under Ukraine (1992-2014). I think that give Russia a pretty good claim.

[Boogieman]

Yeah, if you are trying to say that Ukraine had a larger army than Russia, you are not only mistaken, but you are out of your mind.

[whitney69]

“Their Army is still in the field giving Russia a very hard time.”

Back during our civil war, it was obvious that the south was a superior military force over the north. They were able to establish lines clear into Pennsylvania. But that’s where the war was really ended when the north shut down supply routes of foods and ammo.

By Russia hammering the main cities with missiles which have no loss of manpower, they are doing the same thing. And when the armies of the Ukraine run out of arms and food, they will have to give it up. It’s very close to what the Russian armies did to Napoleon and what ended the civil war here in the states. The only major draw back is that our north did it with direct conflict of armies and Russia is doing it with long shot arms so the death toll in the attacked cities is going to be greater than a nose to nose. And because it is civilians, it will have a bad bitterness toward Russia even though it has been done in most wars and by the US also. And that judgement will last for years and make it very hard to reconnect the two sides.

“Ukraines civilians are not stranded in the steepes of Russia, they are near prosperous cities filled with warm clothing, blankets, space heaters of one sort and another, generators, etc. to enable people to survive cold without freezing.’”

But how long do you expect this to last with missiles removing them? And how long will the Russian change lead to cutting off replacement parts while they are nailing Russian civilians? You give the people of Ukraine too much of an appearance of bravery. If it hurts enough, they will fold. And Putin, I believe, has decided to punish everyone.

wy69

[BroJoeK]

jpsb: "Ever since then it has either been Russian or Soviet(1918-1992) except for a brief period when it was under Ukraine (1992-2014).
I think that give Russia a pretty good claim."

It gives Russia zero claim, nada, because for starters Crimea was transferred to Ukraine not in 1992, but 1954, under the old Soviet Union!
So, this has nothing to do with the old Soviet Empire, and everything to do with the old Tsarists imperial ambitions.

By definition, that makes Putin's claims on Crimea insane.

[jpsb]

That 1954 thing means NOTHING, it was a house keeping move with the USSR. If Ukraine wants the Crimea they are going to have to do it the old fashioned way.

Nice to see you rooting for nuclear war with Russia.

you might want to watch this

Click

[BroJoeK]

jpsb: "That 1954 thing means NOTHING, it was a house keeping move with the USSR."

That's total rubbish, because even Russia acknowledged Crimea was part of Ukraine in 1992.
So AT LEAST twice acknowledged since 1954, but now insane Putin and jpsb want to use NUKES to reestablish the old Tsarists Russian Empire??!!

There's only one description for that, and it's "Hitlerian".
If not stopped now, it will cost us much more to defeat later on.

[BroJoeK]

Whitney: "Back during our civil war, it was obvious that the south was a superior military force over the north.
They were able to establish lines clear into Pennsylvania.
But that’s where the war was really ended when the north shut down supply routes of foods and ammo."

Obviously, you are not American, since you know nothing of our history and barely speak our language.
So let me help you out...

In the US Civil War the sides were overall roughly equal, comparing man for man and leader to leader.
But the Union outnumbered Confederates more than two to one in manpower and many times to one in manufacturing.
So the South hoped to win the same way Americans won our Revolutionary War-- with lots and lots of foreign help.

When Confederates did not receive foreign help, they still had one great hope and that was to elect Democrats like Union General McClellan who would make a peace recognizing the Confederacy.
And in that they nearly succeeded.

Ukraine today is in roughly the same situation as Americans in our Revolutionary War and Confederates in our Civil War -- they are willing to fight like h*ll, but they won't succeed without lots and lots of foreign help.

But in the US Civil War, no foreign country was willing to openly support Confederate slavery over Union Emancipation, whereas today virtually the entire world supports Ukraine in some way or another, because Ukraine is rightly seen as fighting for their own freedom & independence against madman Putin.

History shows that countries which receive significant foreign help do better than others which don't.

[Rokke]

“I had in my “Today’s News” (www.uncoverdc.com) yesterday that Germany just gave the Ukes “200 tanks” (then you read: “Soviet era tanks”). Wait, that’s 30 years ago. So the generous Germans are giving the Ukes 200 coffins.”

Hey coward. You can block me on twitter but on FreeRepublic you can’t hide. You asked for a link to my reference that the Russian military was pulling T-62 tanks from the boneyard to replenish its armored battalions. Here it is.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-to-modernize-800-vintage-t-62-tanks-due-to-ukraine-losses-report

The T-62 was developed in 1961. Talk about coffins. And that’s what they already are for Russian soldiers using them in Ukraine. But it’s all they have left apparently.

And for anyone curious about how Larry hides when confronted outside of FreeRepublic, here’s a link to the discussion where he blocked me on Twitter. You’ll have to scroll up to his original comment from this link because since he blocked me, I can’t link to his original tweet.
https://twitter.com/Rocketman2141/status/1580661239209861121?s=20&t=PFoqs3QLOno7zud4qykg3A

It’s a simple question. And obviously behind Larry’s ability to answer. Sad.

[gleeaikin]

There are 3 important issues affecting military success (not the only ones, but), 1) generalship, 2) resources, 3) motivation.

1) In the beginning the South had some of the better generals, like Robert E. Lee. McLellan’s heart simply was not in killing southerners. It took growing generals like Grant and Sherman to put real hurt into the war. The Ukraine army has really tried to learn from NATO and modernize. The Russians have not. Ukraine has participated in NATO training and learned. Russia has lousy training, logistics and morale building.

2) The north was in much better shape for material war production. They also were able to blockade southern shipping, both outgoing with things to sell, and incoming needed for survival and war effort. Ukraine is much better supplied with war materiel from NATO and US. Russia has done a louse job of caring for its large stores of aging, decaying and looted army supplies. It also has done a great job of supplying Ukraine with abandoned tanks, trucks, etc.

3) South was motivated to keep their slave economy robust, as well as the life style it offered the “better” classes. They were more eager to fight to keep that. The north had some religious motivation to end slavery, but less direct exposure to it and therefore less motivation. This war is driven by Putin’s desires and that of a few oligarchs, not the ordinary people, which is why the word WAR was made a criminal offense. Now that ordinary Russians are learning the truth, it probably will not work out well for Putin and pals. The horrible history of mass starvation inflicted on Ukrainains several times in the past century by Russia is powerful motivation. Putin’s deadly threats have reinforced that.

Part of my anti-Russian motivation comes from family history. In 1945, two elderly sisters of my grandmother were retired in their Berlin apartment. One was a Dentist, the other a Gynechologist. She surely knew how cruelly Ruessians were treating women in Berlin. Intellectuals (educated people) were also targeted. They committed suicide. My grandmother died before I was born and I never met these women, I was cared for as a child by another sister whom I liked a lot. I can imagine the extreme feelings of people who grew up hearing the family stories of fear, suffering, and death by starvation all their lives and in addition knowing the fear of the wolf living near the door step. They will fight and fight forever. Putin go home!!

[Rokke]

Great post. At this point, it’s only possible to believe Russia is doing well in Ukraine if you have no background in military operations. Studying history is useful, but only if it’s done with a matching familiarity of modern combat operations. The war in Ukraine is an odd combo of conventional and unconventional warfare being fought between two modern states who are both becoming increasingly dependent on foreign technology and manpower. Adding to the fog, is both states are wildly corrupt and the leaders of both probably achieved their positions by mastering corruption. Not by their prowess as military tacticians. (Sounds like the current state of the USA actually).

But the thread at this link details very accurately why Russia is failing so dramatically in its invasion of Ukraine. It’s fighting outside the OODA loop of the conflict. In other words, it’s responding so slowly to changes in the conflict that it is actually hurting itself with each adjustment. It’s like a driver on ice training to regain control of a sliding vehicle but always one step behind. Each input actually aggravates the problem rather than fixes it.

https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1580698314949152769?s=20&t=hYwbecpFMrF0rv0yA70Dfw

[BroJoeK]

gleeaikin: "1) In the beginning the South had some of the better generals, like Robert E. Lee.
McLellan’s heart simply was not in killing southerners. "

In 1860 the US Army had 1,008 commissioned officers, of whom 20% went with the Confederacy, 80% remained loyal to the USA.
There were another 213 West Point graduates who had left the service, including Grant, Sherman and Braxton Bragg (CSA).
Of those just under half (99) went Confederate, 114 served the Union.
Overall, we could say that one in four US commissioned officers joined the Confederacy.

gleeaikin: "2) The north was in much better shape for material war production.
They also were able to blockade southern shipping..."

Confederates expected that, like our Founders in the Revolutionary War, they would receive massive aid from foreign countries.
And there were indeed plenty in England, France & elsewhere who'd be happy to see the USA reduced in size & power.
But none were willing to officially support the cause of Confederate slavery against Union emancipation.

Ukrainians today enjoy the advantages of foreign support that our Founders received, but that Confederates never could.

gleeaikin: "3) South was motivated to keep their slave economy robust, as well as the life style it offered the “better” classes.
They were more eager to fight to keep that. "

Our pro-Confederates here argue: it was not slavery which motivated Confederate troops, so much as their understandable desire to defend their own homes, families & neighbors against Northern Aggression.
The reality is that slavery was a huge part of the mix, considering that, while overall only about 25% of CSA troops were slaveholders, virtually 100% of Confederate military officers and political leaders were slaveholders.

gleeaikin: "The north had some religious motivation to end slavery, but less direct exposure to it and therefore less motivation."

The US Civil War began nearly 100% devoted to preserving the Union, not to abolishing slavery.
And most people have long since forgotten (if they ever knew) that the war began as a Confederate invasion of Union states & territories like Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland.

Yes, the issue of slavery was there, from Day One, but as a lesser concern so long as battles were fought in Union states to preserve the Union.
Union citizens generally opposed slavery for religious reasons learned in church, for economic reasons learned in their workplaces and for political reasons, to prevent the growth of elitist Democrats' Slave Power.

gleeaikin: "The horrible history of mass starvation inflicted on Ukrainians several times in the past century by Russia is powerful motivation.
Putin’s deadly threats have reinforced that."

Apparently, madman Putin wishes to go down in the annals of history along with Stalin and others as mass murderers of Ukrainians.

gleeaikin: "Part of my anti-Russian motivation comes from family history..."

Thanks for sharing that. It matters a whole lot.

I served in Germany with V Corps near the Fulda Gap, at a time when the old Soviet T-62s were thought unstoppable.

[whitney69]

“Obviously, you are not American, since you know nothing of our history and barely speak our language.
So let me help you out...

You help me out? You don’t even know what happened or what I said. You’ll be a big help.

Battles won by the south during the civil war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Confederate_victories_of_the_American_Civil_War

Battles won by the north during the civil war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Union_victories_of_the_American_Civil_War

People too many times equate size to might. And they limit their capacity by doing so. I never said the south had a larger force. I said they had a superior force.

If you check out the Oxford Dictionary, the first definition of superior reads:

“a person or THING superior to another in rank, status, or QUALITY, especially a colleague in a higher position.”

See anything about size there? I didn’t either. And you consider me illiterate.

But even with a smaller force the south was able to get about the same done the north did. And it wasn’t until the north cut off supplies to the southern army that they had to halt their push as they were clear into Pennsylvania, Maryland, and other northern locations. So don’t limit your determination of what was said based upon your limitations of understanding. The south just got more done with less. And if they had taken better care not to overstep their re-supply capacity using northern railways, they might even have won the war. They were well on their way with their load of victories.

Size doesn’t always make might. Look at Russia. They are not near as powerful as they seem without their huge nuclear stockpile which is really their only threat.. And if they didn’t have it, they would be no real problem at all.

Please don’t waste my time anymore. I’ve had people try to insult me that are far more capable.

wy69

[DiogenesLamp]

But none were willing to officially support the cause of Confederate slavery against Union emancipation.

That is misleading. That wasn't even an issue in the early days of the war. The intent of the North was to keep slavery intact. It wasn't until nearly two years into the war that the issue of slave freedom was somewhat made into official policy.

The reality is that slavery was a huge part of the mix, considering that, while overall only about 25% of CSA troops were slaveholders, virtually 100% of Confederate military officers and political leaders were slaveholders.

And this is the usual thing from your side. Turn the issue of Northern intentions for the war into the accusation that the Southerners were motivated by slavery.

The focus is on the wrong people. The Northerners invaded. It is *THEY* who need to justify why they did that. The Southerners were simply maintaining the legal status quo they had while they were in the Union. Lincoln said many times he had no intention of changing anything about slavery, and as you well know, he lent his efforts to the passage of the Corwin amendment which would have cemented slavery into the Union indefinitely.

The US Civil War began nearly 100% devoted to preserving the Union, not to abolishing slavery.

Devoted to preserving the nearly 700 million dollars per year of money the North was getting from the South, and to preserve the total control the Northern elite corrupt liberal bastards (same people still ruling us today) had over the economic power of the South, and for that matter all of the North as well. (Look up Graingers.)

The "Union" was doublespeak for "economic control" because the Northern elite had long ago acquired total control of congress and the government. Same as liberals today. In fact, there never stopped being liberal control of government. They just changed their names from Republican to Democrat, but it is the same liberal northern people who have always dominated the government.

Union citizens generally opposed slavery for religious reasons learned in church, for economic reasons learned in their workplaces and for political reasons, to prevent the growth of elitist Democrats' Slave Power.

Misleading. Correct, but very misleading. Only the teeniest minority of absolute stark raving mad liberal kooks opposed slavery for moral reasons. These people would be roughly akin to the kooky eco warriors who put spikes in trees and rescue animals from laboratories. They were nuts.

The vast majority of the American people hated slavery for two primary reasons. They hated black people and did not want them in the country, and especially did not want to associate with them, and because they saw free labor as an economic threat to their own well being, because the vast majority of them had to trade their labor for wages.

A third and lesser issue was the envy-hate of wealthy slaveowners who acted like an "aristocracy."

The opposition to slavery "expanding" (it couldn't) into the territories was based on the Northern power control over congress. Admitting new slave states that would side with the South would damage the Northern elite control of congress, and so they created an astro-turf campaign (Free Soil Party) to create the illusion that there was widespread hatred of the idea of slaves in the territories.

Again, this was not for moral reasons, but instead was entirely because admitting new slave states, even though they would never have any significant slave presence, would dilute the power of the Northern elite controlling congress, and could therefore interrupt that stream of money being taken from the Southerners and put into Northern elite pockets.

The corrupt, evil, nasty Northern Liberal elite will defend their money streams with the blood of anyone they can con into fighting for them.

Apparently, madman Putin wishes to go down in the annals of history along with Stalin and others as mass murderers of Ukrainians.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't side with Abraham Putin in his efforts to preserve the (soviet) Union. Aren't you in favor of preserving Unions by invading breakaway seceded states?

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, and thanks for the ping. We haven’t had a good argument in awhile. :)

[ought-six]

“...while overall only about 25% of CSA troops were slaveholders,”

That’s not true.

That 25% number has been debunked, as it applied to slaveholding FAMILIES, not troops; and even at that, that 25% included ALL members of the family, including infants and maiden aunts and widowed mothers and spinster daughters, when in fact the actual owners were the heads of household; the extended family were not the owners. So, actual slave OWNERS amounted to something closer to 5% of the TOTAL population of white southerners of 5.5 million, or some 275,000 slaveowners. And, of that, the vast majority owned fewer than 10 slaves.

“The US Civil War began nearly 100% devoted to preserving the Union, not to abolishing slavery.”

That’s true.

“And most people have long since forgotten (if they ever knew) that the war began as a Confederate invasion of Union states & territories like Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland.”

Also not true.

Here is the actual list of all battles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles

“Apparently, madman Putin wishes to go down in the annals of history along with Stalin and others as mass murderers of Ukrainians.”

That may be his intent, but he has a long way to go before he catches up with Uncle Joe. But, time will tell.

[BroJoeK]

whitney69: "You help me out?
You don’t even know what happened or what I said.
You’ll be a big help."

In your post #266, your second paragraph is unintelligible gibberish, from which I concluded that English is not your native language, and American history is not something you ever studied in depth.

whitney69: "Battles won by the south during the civil war:"

Like I said, overall, the sides were roughly equal, man for man or leader for leader, but the Union side outnumbered Confederates more than two-to-one in population and many-to-one in manufacturing.

In the Civil War's first year Confederates won more battles than they lost, and even into the third year they still won as many as lost.
But in something like 90% of all battles & skirmishes, the side with the larger numbers was victorious.
So even though Confederates had fewer men overall, they were still often able to move enough to any particular battle to win it.

whitney69: "People too many times equate size to might.
And they limit their capacity by doing so.
I never said the south had a larger force.
I said they had a superior force."

Confederates never had a superior force overall, but they were often able to move enough available troops to a battlefield to defeat a less agile Union army.

whitney69: "But even with a smaller force the south was able to get about the same done the north did."

In the Civil War's first 18 months, Confederates won as many battles & skirmishes as they lost, overall.
However, Confederates seldom won a battle when they were outnumbered.
Their success then was dependent on their ability to gather enough forces together before the battle to make success in battle more certain.

whitney69: "And it wasn’t until the north cut off supplies to the southern army that they had to halt their push as they were clear into Pennsylvania, Maryland, and other northern locations. "

From Day One of the war the Union imposed a blockade of Southern ports, which from the beginning was able to stop slow sailing ships carrying bulk cargoes like cotton from reaching customers in England.
The effect was to drastically reduce Confederates' ability to purchase weapons and warships from abroad.

Over time the Union blockade became effective enough that only the fastest steam-powered Confederate ships could escape it.

In the war's first year more battles were fought in Union states & territories than in the Confederacy.
Those Union battles included Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maryland.

And Confederates never stopped invading Union states, though such events became less important later in the war.

whitney69: "The south just got more done with less.
And if they had taken better care not to overstep their re-supply capacity using northern railways, they might even have won the war.
They were well on their way with their load of victories."

Only in Virginia did Confederate victories greatly outnumber defeats.
In every other state & territory, Confederates generally lost as many as they won from the beginning.

whitney69: "Look at Russia.
They are not near as powerful as they seem without their huge nuclear stockpile which is really their only threat..
And if they didn’t have it, they would be no real problem at all."

Yes, so it certainly appears now.
The long-term will tell which side has the stronger will and resources.
I would not now consider any particular outcome a certainty.

[mac_truck]

At this point, it’s only possible to believe Russia is doing well in Ukraine if you have no background in military operations.

Lol...is "doing well" even a term used in military operations?

This week Russia was able to strike Ukraine anywhere it wanted to with impunity...is that considered "doing well", Gerneral?