Posted on 08/24/2023 9:46:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Macgregor is far more ethical, accurate and unbiased than the Ukrainian grifter Denys Davydov, who is quite literally, for sale.
It’s the same old theme
Since nineteen-seventeen
In your head, in your head
They’re still fightin’
With their tanks and their bombs
And their bombs and their guns
In your head, in your head
They are dyin’
In your head, in your head
Zombie, zombie, zombie, hey, hey
What’s in your head, in your head
Zombie, zombie, zombie, hey, hey, hey
________
Lots of war documentaries on TV: Napoleon, Crimean War, WWI, Russian Civil War, WWII.
This all seems like another dreary rerun or reboot.
It is amusing to watch the subtle yet ongoing shift in the "narrative." The game reminds of Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning 'is' is."
"Gen. Milley on if Ukraine can win: Define ‘win’," Washignton Post, 18 August 2023.
"On if Ukraine can win""Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/18/gen-milley-ukraine-tuberville-wokeness/“That depends on what you mean by the word ‘win.’”
“For Ukraine, this is an existential fight. It's a fight for survival. But for the rest of Europe and for the rest of the world, really, for the United States, it's about those rules, to make sure those rules stay in place. What Putin has done is a frontal assault on those rules of the international order that have been in existence now for eight decades since the end of World War II.
"If the end state is Ukraine is a free, independent sovereign country with its territory intact, that will take a considerable level of effort yet to come. And this is a long, very difficult, high casualty-producing war that's ongoing. You can achieve those objectives through military means. That's gonna take a long, long time, but you can also achieve those objectives maybe possibly, through some sort of diplomatic means.”
So, "a frontal assault on those rules of the international order" is not only now a still "unofficial" war between non-NATO Ukraine and non-NATO Russia, with proxies a plenty emptying their economies of waeth and materiel, but it is also an event which has brought BRICS+ into being, dismissed by some and hailed by others, alongside the fact that SWIFT and the BIC will not be the only game in town, and Biden-Blinken-Nuland the only diplomacy to be reckoned with as time goes by.
Define what winning is.
Define what losing is.
Apparently, "it depends on what the meaning is 'is' is."
But Milley, while not leading NATO into a still-not-NATO land war with Russia on behalf of non-NATO Ukraine says, "this is a long, very difficult, high casualty-producing war."
Hurrah for war, "but you can also achieve those objectives maybe possibly, through some sort of diplomatic means."
The narrative shifts day by day.
Crimea is Russia.
They’re fighting Red China ?
Bingo. Way too many globalist spambots and paid trolls pushing that degenerate warmongering agenda on FR. They should’ve been tossed off here a year ago.
Pipe down, pipsqueak.
So, to say this was meaningless gesture is an understatement.
Crimea nor any of the annexed regions will ever be part of Ukraine again. Nor do those that live there want to be part of Ukraine again.
And your response?
They’re fighting Red China ?
Are you disputing that the Soviet Union was once our preeminent geostrategic foe? Are you denying that Putin's Russia still has an arsenal of weapons aimed at America?
Your comment makes no sense!
Regards,
The Soviet Union collapsed 32 years ago. You’re still fighting that war.
Red China is our enemy, not Russia. Russia should be our ally, but the corrupt warmongering installed globalist regime in D.C. is doing everything it can to provoke them. Fact is, we have no business butting into this civil war between Russia and the Ukraine. If you feel so strongly about “defeating” the pro-Christian/anti-globalist/anti-Sodomarchy Russia, you can leave for the Ukraine today and go sign up to fight in their army to preserve the child sex trafficking oligarchs power there.
An interesting conflation of geopolitical names. Soviet Union. Russia.
When the Soviet Union, a 'preeminent geostrategic foe' existed, Ukraine was a part of it. The war in Ukraine with Russia tells that Ukraine, for a time a part of the Soviet Union, is not part of Russia today. Or in part, on whatever side one supports.
As to, "are you denying that Putin's Russia still has an arsenal of weapons aimed at America?" I for one do not deny it. Nor do I deny that we have an arsenal of weapons aimed at Russia (and other foes too).
Were you and I to be facing one another with semiautomatic weapons to back up a heated disagreement, it is assured we would both get "itchy trigger fingers" or both lower our weapons, all the while expecting a possible trick. People are suspicious of people, after all.
So the second question is distinct from the first. The second is a key issue today. As with the notion of "mutually-assured destruction," and from the standoff between Kennedy and Khrushchev so long ago, MAD still functions. This is that classic Mexican standoff."
As Wiki conveniently summarizes, "A Mexican standoff is a confrontation where no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory. Any party initiating aggression might trigger their own demise. At the same time, the parties are unable to extract themselves from the situation without suffering a loss. As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event or interparty dialogue makes it possible to resolve it.Threatening America's heartland and threatening Russia's -- or Europe's or China's -- heartland is that standoff. And, as above, "all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until...."
And this is where you have the chance to offer your strategy for diffusing the standoff. Have you one to declare?
Regards.
I have referred to the Soviet Union only because the Russian Federation is the declared successor-state of the U.S.S.R., and because Putin's Russia now displays the same predisposition to Imperialism - incl. the intimidation of its neighbors, grabbing land, etc.
Red China is our enemy, not Russia.
Both Red China and Putin's Russia are military threats to the U.S.
Putin has a stockpile of nuclear weapons many times greater than Red China's, and most of Russia's nukes are pointed at America. Red China is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea, continuing to threaten Taiwan, etc. They each represent different kinds of threats (in quality and magnitude) to America, and I am by no means trying to understate the danger China poses to America's interests and security. But focusing solely upon Red China and ignoring the aggressive posture adopted by Putin's Russia - as you are attempting to argue - is unwarranted.
Russia should be our ally
And it should rain sprinkled doughnuts - but it doesn't.
We will win no worthy friends in Moscow by ignoring that the current regime there has disavowed the post-WWII security order, is attacking or threatening to attack multiple neighbors, and cannot be a credible partner until Putin is deposed. And until Putin is swept away, we will have to be satisfied with a constant erosion and degradation of the military threat potential of Putin's land forces.
Fact is, we have no business butting into this civil war between Russia and the Ukraine.
That is an entirely ingenuous and factually untrue characterization of the invasion - in breach of all principles of international law - by a foreign power of a neighboring sovereign nation.
Regards,
I am not "conflating" anything.
The fact that the Soviet Union was dissolved and that, subsequently, the Russian Federation voluntarily chose to assume the mantle of "successor-state" to the U.S.S.R. - with all that that entails - is something that I cannot be held accountable for.
Further, to all appearances, Putin is attempting to reestablish something like a resurrected U.S.S.R. in its old borders.
When the Soviet Union, a 'preeminent geostrategic foe' existed, Ukraine was a part of it. The war in Ukraine with Russia tells that Ukraine, for a time a part of the Soviet Union, is not part of Russia today.
The fact that Ukraine was once a part of the U.S.S.R. is now largely irrelevant / an historical curiosity. After the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., Ukraine wanted nothing more to do with its tainted political and historical legacy. Instead, Ukraine voluntarily surrendered its nuclear weapons (based in part on security assurances provided by the West).
Re. "Mexican Stand-Off": It is cheap to argue that, because of MAD, the West must accept any non-nuclear outrage perpetrated by our nuclear-armed foes, make any concessions they demand. That is nothing more than the old "Better Red than Dead" argument that held sway among the Left here in Central Europe during the days of the NATO Double-Track Decision.
Regards,
"And this is where you have the chance to offer your strategy for diffusing the standoff. Have you one to declare?"As best I went through your response, you have no strategy of your own to declare.
If you have a strategy going forward, I would look forward to reading it.
Have you a strategy to offer?
Why do you keep talking to yourself Field marshal Zhukov? It is interesting that you call yourself pipsqueak
It is called rationalization. Remember the disastrous exit from Afghanistan was described as a “success.”
“War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
I endeavor, always, to address every substantive point raised in a posting to which I respond.
In the case of your question, it contains an implied (concealed) premise/assumption that I am not willing to co-sign: Namely, that a "stand-off" is something attainable, or even desirable. Also: That anyone but the directly-involved combatants - and specifically, the aggrieved party of the invaded country - can conclude that a stand-off is now imperative.
The Collective West is supplying financial aid, training, supplies, and arms - but does not have the moral standing to impose terms upon Ukraine and/or demand that she strive for a "stand-off" (however you define it); we could, at most, threaten to withdraw our aid.
So: The onus is upon you to first explain why any such ill-defined "stand-off" should be sought by Ukraine. Specifically, you should explain why such a course of action would be preferable to any other conceivable alternative (such as continuing to fight until, e.g., the Russian people grow war-weary, Putin is assassinated or deposed, Russia breaks up, Belarus switches sides, etc.).
If, by "stand-off," you mean "cessation of hostilities," then I would propose that Ukraine continue defeating Russia on the battlefield until Russia gives up, confesses her culpability, and makes amends to Ukraine (war reparations).
Contrariwise: The worst strategy going forward would be for Ukraine to make territorial concessions to Russia. That would practically guarantee a repeat of the Russian invasion at some time in the near future.
Regards,
Meant to write "demand that she strive for a diffusing of the stand-off" - also elsewhere in similar formulations elsewhere in my response.
Regards,
Nope. Long story short. You stated what you wanted to say.
"I would propose that Ukraine continue defeating Russia on the battlefield until Russia gives up, confesses her culpability, and makes amends to Ukraine (war reparations)."So all the West need do is wait for Ukraine to defeat Russia on the battlefield.
Okay. I'm fine with that. Let them fight.
A small problem could arise, if Ukraine does not defeat Russia. We might well be discussing / debating this over time. Time will tell.
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.