Posted on 03/18/2023 12:07:32 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
...and if the Ukes leave...?
Good stuff, but realize Zeepers are uneducable…
“Most of the neo Nazi core of the Ukrainian military has been killed but there are still a significant number and they still ‘hold Bakhmut’. The true tragedy are the conscripts and others used as cannon fodder.”
Russia knows that they probably have roughly another 2 years before the West can even start to ramp up production of weapons significantly, due to the fact that the West simply shutdown their military production infrastructure after the Cold War, producing only enough hardware to replace what was consumed in training and relatively minor adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan, and not protecting any standby production capability (after all, why bother when “The End of History” book proclaims that large wars are over). Heck, it took a nearly a year for the Military-Hating Leftists running this war to even realize that our weapons stocks were not infinite, not even close to that.
So why should Russia hurry? Easier to level their targets before moving in, if the Neocon Cannon Fodder (Ukrainians) are not interested in retreating.
I grew up in a Polish neighborhood in Chicago went to a Polish Church with many veterans of the attack in 1939. They had their own Polish Veteran’s Post - every Polish veteran who fought in 1939 against both the Nazis and Russians despised the Ukrainians.
It was so bad that across the street from our Church was a Ukrainian Catholic Church - The Polish Veterans would cross the street rather than walk in from of the Ukrainian Church.
The problem is there are two wars going on in Ukraine, well maybe three.
1. The propaganda war. Zelensky has won that one. Hero Ukraine can not lose to evil Ruzzian Orks. Western Media has supported this from day one. Only now has the truth seeped out.
2. The Political War. Zelensky has won that one too with untold Billions coming in to support the rich, and make his group all powerful—by selling weapons and getting rid of all opposition.
3. The real war—Here Zelensky is falling into the Hitler trap—trying to out think his generals and advisors. Holding the line in Bakhmut is good for Propaganda and politics but chewing up his troops and ending any hope of a victory. Now his ONLY hope is to draw in the USA and NATO. Without major help Zelensky is a dead man walking. He knows this. When Bakhmut falls he may well be out of a job (and /or Dead).
The only war that matters is the one where people are being killed and territory being taken. In spite of the weapons being sent the Ukranian blood being spilled cannot go on forever and the West cannot match Russia’s weapons production. Our genius leadership thought was a great idea to deindustrialize the West in order to keep citizens poor and now they idiots cannot even manufacture their own weapons.
Before this is over the collective leadership of the West will feel the rage of their betrayed citizens.
When it is over, Russia will be the loser and destitute.
This week there was a new international charge added to that of Russian War Criminals........ Crimes Against Humanity.
Tha can be carried further to charge those who support Russia and are aiding and abetting the war crimes are now charged with aiding and abetting Crimes Against Humanity.
Guess who that includes?
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Has Ukraine made a big mistake by refusing to retreat from Bakhmut?, Does so wrote: ...and if the Ukes leave...?
The Russians will track them (military) down and kill them the old-fashioned way. Russian citizens want the threat on their doorstep ended, permanently so it means crushing the capacity for the Ukraine/NATO combination to repeat this in a couple of years.
| In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Has Ukraine made a big mistake by refusing to retreat from Bakhmut?, Timber Rattler wrote: |
| Have the Russians actually taken Bakhmut yet, despite us being told ad nauseum that "it's over" for the past three months? Answer: No. 'nuff said. |
The Russians are hunkered down and letting the Ukraine send it's soldiers to defend Bakhmut. There's no need for Russia to move to find soldiers to fight so this is a war of attrition where the Ukrainians send their men to 'defend ' or hold Bakhmut and the Russians kill them, and wait for more.
Both sides are experiencing losses, Russia is satisfied to wait in it's trenches for the Ukrainians to send in more soldiers to kill. No need to 'take' land if you want to destroy the enemies military.
Any chance the Ukrainians had was gone a long time ago. They lost 'too many' soldiers and had too little ammo/hardware (NATO) and lost infrastructure so in conventional warfare, it was expected they would stop and negotiate to spare the remaining public. But NATO and Z are not Ukrainian and so they are going to feed every last Ukrainian/Romanian/NATO conscript and resource into the woodchipper without a reasonable expectation of winning. This is unusual - normally a country conducts war until the losses are too great. In the Ukraine, no amount of citizen and infrastructure loss matters.
Everyday you crank out large amouts of Uke propaganda so it's strange to see you using the 'nuff said' line.
Your post is too silly for me to respond to.
| In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Has Ukraine made a big mistake by refusing to retreat from Bakhmut?, Armscor38 wrote: |
“Fortunately, yes. The Russians wanted to eliminate neo Nazi forces in the Ukraine and after some movement, settled down to let the neo Nazi’s come to them in Bakhmut.” It is the Russians coming to Bakhmut where the UKR forces are. Russia has been attacking that town for over 7 months and have suffered extraordinary loses. It generally accepted that attacking forces lose more then the defensive forces. Would you agree with that? |
Doesn't apply here. The Russians have a 6x or 8x advantage in terms of ammo. They fire many more times the amount of ammo on a daily basis, in addition to having more arms of other classifications (fighter jets). More shooting - more targets hit.
Without fighter jets, the Ukraine won't be able to defend any number of tanks sent them.
The Ukrainians lost the core of their trained soldiers and are unfortunately using large numbers of men with no combat experience. The Russians have a higher ratio of trained soldiers.
3rd parties have tried to pin down how many soldiers the Russians 'really' lost. Some tried tracking funeral announcements etc. They get far lower numbers compared with Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians had fewer soldiers to begin with. After first trying to bloody the Ukraine enough to drive them to the negotiationg table, the Russians are now determined to end the threat posed by NATO's Ukrainian puppets so they are indeed taking heavier losses than before. But they still have more soldiers and ammo at a time when Ukraine/NATO are running out.
“Doesn’t apply here. The Russians have a 6x or 8x advantage in terms of ammo. They fire many more times the amount of ammo on a daily basis, in addition to having more arms of other classifications (fighter jets). More shooting - more targets hit.”
Russian artillery attacks have decreased and are reported to be inaccurate. Thus Russia has to expend much more ammo to try and get near the same results as UKR does with their much more precise targeting . Russia has nothing like HIMARs. Russia , despite having more aircraft the UKR, has been unable to achieve air superiority. Russia’s naval forces have been forced to move back from near UKR because of loss of ships
So changing the story now, eh? That's not what the other pro-Kremlin appeaseniks around here have been spouting since October.
You mean Macgregor saying this is the end for Ukraine?
MACGREGOR: That is over, and the phase in which we find ourselves now, Russian forces have now maneuvered to encircle and surround the remaining Ukraine forces and destroy them, through a series of massive rocket artillery strikes, airstrikes with Russian armor then slowly, but surely closing the distance and annihilating what’s left.
So this is a — this is the beginning, frankly of the end of Ukrainian resistance.
CARLSON: So the ugly stuff is just beginning.
MACGREGOR: Yes.
transcript of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on March 1, 2022.
The International Criminal Court's jurisdiction was never recognized by the following nations:
- United States
- Russia
- China
- Ukraine
- Turkey
The ICC is a kennel of barking chihuahuas always trying to get the big dogs to fight their battles for them. Its virtue-signaling "rulings" are meaningless.
You can’t respond because what can one say in defense of Putin and his statements like “Russia knows no borders.”
After watching the “Wołyn” movie, I understand why.
Chauncey repeated the lie about “expanding NATO” — no promise was made
Gorbachev and the documents show ZERO promise not to enlarge
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
What the Germans, Americans, British and French did agree to in 1990 was that there would be no deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former GDR. I was a deputy director on the State Department’s Soviet desk at the time, and that was certainly the point of Secretary James Baker’s discussions with Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze. In 1990, few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.
The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:
1. Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
2. There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
3. Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.
When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech
http://nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.
Former Soviet President Gorbachev’s View
We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev,http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March, NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.
Putin is not stupid, and his aides surely have access to the former Soviet records from the time and understand the history of the commitments made by Western leaders and NATO. But the West’s alleged promise not to enlarge the Alliance will undoubtedly remain a standard element of his anti-NATO spin. That is because it fits so well with the picture that the Russian leader seeks to paint of an aggrieved Russia, taken advantage of by others and increasingly isolated—not due to its own actions, but because of the machinations of a deceitful West.
Here is the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
to summarize , it means that Soviet forces would withdraw from East Germany, and that no foreign forces would be stationed there afterwards. In other words, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, only the German military would be allowed to be stationed in the former East Germany.
NOTE — not in the former East Germany.
Absolutely NOTHING about going to Poland, the Baltics etc.
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.