Posted on 02/03/2024 9:46:00 AM PST by Trump20162020
White House officials did not support or object to the planned ouster of Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, saying it’s President Volodymyr Zelensky’s sovereign choice, people familiar with the matter said
The government of Ukraine has informed the White House that President Volodymyr Zelensky has decided to fire his top military commander, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, in what would be the most consequential personnel shake-up of the war, said two people familiar with the discussion.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That’s odd. Why should we care about the military officials in Ukraine unless they are our proxy army. I may have answered my own question.
Which is why Queen Vicky was in Kiev to sock-puppet the Piano Man the other day...
“That’s odd. Why should we care about the military officials in Ukraine unless they are our proxy army. I may have answered my own question.”
Last week they were denying the story.
Are there any thoughts on if this action will improve the Ukes war prospects in any meaningful way?
It’s the Blazing Saddles strategy. Give us another $100B or we will fire our favorite general.
“Are there any thoughts on if this action will improve the Ukes war prospects in any meaningful way?”
My opinion is not much difference. They’re in a bad strategic situation. Locked in an attritional battle with a larger foe.
(Queen Vicky)
Cookie? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
There is no unfound strategy available in Ukraine that will make any difference. 500,000 foreign troops fully supplied and plenty of air power would make a difference. Of course, we had 550,000 plus superior air power in Vietnam and still lost. That’s because we haven’t fought to WIN a war since WWII.
Biden told them to fire him or they won’t get a billion dollars. General must know something about Hunter.
Whose gonna replace him?
Its not like the UkroReich has a deep bench.
And we would care why?? Or do you want the big check you gave him back...lol
And the guy the troops followed just got canned by a politician who can’t understand that Russia can attrit for another couple of years of dead Ukrainians. I’m sure the general opposed another offensive so Zelensky could justify scamming more billions. Long live King Z. Death to the soldiers. /s
“Are there any thoughts on if this action will improve the Ukes war prospects in any meaningful way?”
Not possible. The problem is that the West has basically used up whatever hardware and ammo they could spare, along with reducing operational readiness in some places, like South Korea.
Then couple that with fact that military production was at a trickle before the war and our military ‘geniuses’ never thought we’d get into another war of attrition (despite the Neocons running around the world starting wars everywhere), and so they didn’t bother with having any standby capacity to speak of (for example, most shopping centers in Southern California used to be Defense Plants, many right through the Cold War). Now the Neocons are learning the hard way that our defense industries DO NOT want to spring for Billions of Dollars to build plants for manufacturing weapons because they know the Ukraine War will soon end and that any promises made to arm-up mean nothing.
“...saying it’s President Volodymyr Zelensky’s sovereign choice...”
I suppose Zelensky was studying the art of war at a military college while he pranced around dancing in high heels.
I will never understand why people comply to the demands of idiots.
Existential military strategy musing here.
Why did we and continue to spend all the money on nukes of various sizes and keeping the maintained and operational, only to lose wars in places such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc? Are we getting best value for this money spent? Or should we be threatening much more often, to use our nukes if we don’t get our way? Others do and benefit. I would think our threats would be more credible as the only one to actually yet have used them in combat.
Not a neocon war monger but don’t like to think we are acting the naive fool part jn a dangerous corrupt world either.
I’m not sure threatening to use nukes on Russia will work too well considering that theirs are bigger, they have missile defense, and they have civil defense.
Iran or the Norks maybe, but we’d still likely lose some Democrat-infested cities, so...
Today, only maybe at best.
Back in 1951/52, it would have ended the Korean War and finished off the Norks. Would that have been better long term for the North Koreans? Maybe but unknown.
I’m glad in some ways that we haven’t bullied with nukes to our own advantage but am still unconvinced that they have been used by all the nuke powers to their best effect. Is the threat of world mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) the reason we haven’t seen them used since Nagasaki? Or has a lot of dumb luck been involved as well?
Or has their been terrifying brinksmanship between nuclear powers over the years that the general public just has never been made aware of?
Still think chemical and biological weapons more ominous threat than nukes anyway.
Just my 2 cents and worth about that.
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.