Posted on 08/28/2024 9:18:21 AM PDT by Mariner
KYIV (Reuters) -Ukraine's top diplomat said on Wednesday that the biggest problem faced by Kyiv as it battles Russia is that its allies are afraid of approving new policies to support Ukraine out of a fear of escalation.
The remark by Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba came a day after Russia's foreign minister said the West was "playing with fire" by considering allowing Kyiv to strike deep into Russia and warned of the risks of World War Three.
"Ever since the beginning of the large-scale invasion, the biggest problem Ukraine has been facing is the domination of the concept of escalation in the decision-making processes among our partners," Kuleba said.
More than 2-1/2 years since Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv is pushing the West to give it the long-range weapons - and the authorisation - to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. It also wants help shooting down incoming missiles.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
It is their principal strategic goal.
Is there anything in Ukraine that is worth such a war? Certainly not to the American people. It has been the policy of every administration to avoid direct military conflict with the Russians.
The policy was deterrence through strength. Not invading Russia.
With which nation or nations (if any) is the Ukraine an ally?
We have FReepers who are excited to make WW III happen.
However, it won’t, because these same deluded people say Ukraine is winning and will easily overcome Russia.
Seems so, doesn't it?
So, what was the purpose of invading Kursk, Russia, Mr. Zeeper Zelensky? Hmmm? You are losing on your Eastern front by taking troops what few remaining and pushing into actual Russia!
So this blatant “fear of escalation” would be a FACT of YOUR escalating would it NOT? What a jiveA@@ fag dancer this clown is— as in “where’s my check?” jive.
No Problem, Ukraine can just install some Ukrainian "Advisors" in their "allies" governments, that would discourage any wavering commitment.
There must be plenty of Nazi Homos in Ukraine that would be willing to sabota support their allies.
Look at how they helped Germany meet their natural gas needs.
That front to Kursk sounds an awful lot like Germany’s battle of Ardennes. Same problem, the allies had way more men and material.
Stupid Ukraine
Sure, we’ll install your government, give you weapons and money - but you were always on your own, fools.
“The Germans achieved a total surprise attack on the morning of 16 December 1944, due to a combination of Allied overconfidence, preoccupation with Allied offensive plans elsewhere and poor aerial reconnaissance due to bad weather. American forces were using this region primarily as a rest area for the U.S. First Army, and the lines were thinly held by fatigued troops and inexperienced replacement units. The Germans also took advantage of heavily overcast weather conditions that grounded the Allies’ superior air forces for an extended period.”
“The Allies defended the Ardennes line very thinly, due to the favorable defensive terrain (a densely wooded highland with deep river valleys and a rather thin road network) and because they had intelligence that the Wehrmacht was using the area across the German border as a rest-and-refit area for its own troops.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
It’s not fear....it’s common sense.
Ukraine needs to adapt to reality....nobody is interested in another World war over Ukraine. Period.
WIKI
The Battle of Kursk was a major World War II Eastern Front battle between the forces of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union near Kursk in southwestern Russia during the summer of 1943, resulting in a Soviet victory. The Battle of Kursk was the single largest battle in the history of warfare.
Special training was provided to the Soviet infantry manning the defences to help them overcome the tank phobia that had been evident since the start of the German invasion. Soldiers were packed into trenches and tanks were driven overhead until all signs of fear were gone. This training exercise was referred to by the soldiers as “ironing”. In combat, the soldiers would spring up in the midst of the attacking infantry to separate them from the spearheading armoured vehicles. The separated armoured vehicles – now vulnerable to infantry armed with PTRD-41 anti-tank rifles, demolition charges and molotov cocktails – could then be disabled or destroyed at point-blank range. These types of attacks were mostly effective against the Ferdinand tank destroyers, which lacked machine guns as secondary armament. The soldiers were also promised financial rewards for each tank destroyed, with the People’s Commissariat of Defence providing a bounty of 1,000 roubles for each destroyed tank.
The Soviets employed maskirovka (military deception) to mask defensive positions and troop dispositions and to conceal the movement of men and materiel. These included camouflaging gun emplacements, constructing dummy airfields and depots, generating false radio-traffic, and spreading rumours among the Soviet frontline troops and the civilian population in the German-held areas. Movement of forces and supplies to and from the salient took place at night only. Ammunition caches were carefully concealed to blend in with the landscape. Radio transmission was restricted and fires were forbidden. Command posts were hidden and motor transport in and around them forbidden.
According to a Soviet General Staff report, 29 of the 35 major Luftwaffe raids on Soviet airfields in the Kursk sector in June 1943 were against dummy airfields. According to historian Antony Beevor, in contrast, Soviet aviation apparently succeeded in destroying more than 500 Luftwaffe aircraft on the ground.
[German general:]
“Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn’t care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?”
The main tank of the Soviet tank arm was the T-34 medium tank, on which the Red Army attempted to concentrate production.
the T-34 made up the bulk of the Soviet armour. Without including the deeper reserves organised under the Steppe Front, the Soviets massed about 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 2,792 aircraft to defend the salient. This amounted to 26 percent of the total manpower of the Red Army, 26 percent of its mortars and artillery, 35 percent of its aircraft and 46 percent of its tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
No, Ukraine is asking the US to remove the ridiculous restriction on Ukraine stopping it from using ATACMS on Russian military airfields.
Result is Russians can hit Ukraine with missiles containing American components and Ukraine still can't hit military targets in Russia with American missiles
The United States benefits economically from its alliance with Ukraine in several ways. While the primary motivations for the U.S. support for Ukraine are often framed in terms of geopolitical strategy, security, and the promotion of democratic values, there are also several economic dimensions to this partnership that provide benefits to the United States:
1. Defense and Security Sector Growth:
The ongoing conflict and U.S. support for Ukraine have led to increased spending on military and defense equipment. American defense contractors have secured contracts to provide arms, ammunition, training, and logistical support to Ukraine, leading to growth in the defense sector. The sales of Javelin anti-tank missiles, drones, and other military hardware are examples of economic benefits accruing to U.S. companies from this partnership.
2. Energy and Natural Gas Opportunities:
Ukraine’s strategic location and its efforts to reduce dependency on Russian gas provide economic opportunities for U.S. energy companies. The U.S. has exported liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, including Ukraine, as part of a broader strategy to diversify energy sources away from Russian supplies. This has opened up markets for U.S. natural gas producers and energy companies looking to expand into Eastern Europe.
3. Infrastructure and Reconstruction Investments:
Ukraine’s need to rebuild and modernize its infrastructure presents significant opportunities for American companies specializing in construction, engineering, and technology. U.S. firms may be well-positioned to participate in contracts for infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, utilities, and digital infrastructure, especially as Ukraine continues to receive international aid and loans for reconstruction.
4. Expansion of U.S. Businesses and Exports:
The U.S.-Ukraine alliance fosters economic ties that benefit U.S. businesses through increased exports of goods and services. This includes agricultural products, machinery, technology, and consumer goods. As Ukraine works to stabilize and grow its economy, American companies have opportunities to expand their market presence in Ukraine and the broader Eastern European region.
5. Investment Opportunities in Technology and IT:
Ukraine has a rapidly growing information technology (IT) sector with a highly skilled workforce, which has attracted significant interest from U.S. tech companies and investors. Many American firms outsource IT services to Ukraine or have invested in Ukrainian tech startups, benefiting from cost-effective, high-quality software development and engineering talent. The U.S.-Ukraine alliance helps to foster a stable business environment that encourages such investments.
6. Promoting Economic Stability in Europe:
By supporting Ukraine and helping it resist Russian aggression, the U.S. contributes to the overall economic stability of Europe. A stable Europe is beneficial to the U.S. economy because it is one of America’s largest trading partners. Stability in the region reduces the risk of economic shocks that could disrupt global markets, thereby protecting U.S. economic interests abroad.
7. Sanctions and Competitive Advantages:
The sanctions imposed on Russia as a response to its actions in Ukraine have forced European and global companies to seek alternative suppliers and markets. This situation has sometimes benefited American firms that offer similar products and services, allowing them to fill gaps left by sanctioned Russian businesses and expand their market share in Europe and beyond.
8. Support for U.S. Geopolitical Interests with Economic Impact:
Strengthening an alliance with Ukraine supports broader U.S. geopolitical interests that have significant economic dimensions. By countering Russian influence and promoting a democratic, market-oriented Ukraine, the U.S. helps foster a region that is more integrated with Western economies, promoting trade, investment, and economic growth that indirectly benefit U.S. economic interests.
9. Strengthening Transatlantic Economic Ties:
The U.S.-Ukraine alliance helps reinforce transatlantic economic ties between the U.S. and Europe. By working together to support Ukraine, the U.S. and its European allies also deepen economic cooperation in other areas, such as trade agreements, regulatory alignment, and joint investment initiatives, which have positive economic ramifications for U.S. businesses operating in Europe.
10. Advancing Innovation and R&D Collaborations:
Ukraine’s expertise in certain niche areas, such as aerospace and IT, offers potential for collaborative research and development (R&D) initiatives with American companies and institutions. This collaboration could lead to innovations and technological advancements that benefit U.S. industries and contribute to their global competitiveness.
Overall, while the economic benefits to the U.S. from its alliance with Ukraine may not be the primary driver of the relationship, they are nonetheless significant. The partnership opens up markets, supports U.S. businesses and investments, and promotes a stable economic environment in a strategically important region.
“Ukraine needs to adapt to reality....nobody is interested in another World war over Ukraine. Period.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hpothetically, Is that what you would have said to Churchill then??
Mr. Caww Chamberlin could very well have said this... :
“Hey, Mr. Churchill, Germans will take everything, just admit reality and stop defending your country. Great Britain must stop defending itself now! Your defensive actions will only make Hitler even more violent. It’s far better to appease the Hitler. And when the Germany has taken and raped everything, then we can live in peace!”
Basically, its exactly what you are saying concerning the Russia on Ukraine terrorist attack.
Supporting and appeasing terrorism is not wise.
If you fall into the trap of Russian blackmail, and start to think what we can do or not do, of course, I think this is basically promoting the Russian cause, and this is what they want to achieve.
So in this case, our aim is to sustain support regardless of some kind of escalatory logic from the Russian side.
Latvia supports fully that Western weaponry can be used for self-defense, which means also self-defense on Russian territory, because Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, Ukrainian people, civilians are being shelled from Russian territory.
So global nuclear war is a disincentive? Who knew?
It’s ever so easy for these Russian hawks in NATO to advocate escalation...they don’t have to pay that bill in blood and treasure.
‘eff ‘em.
They don’t get a vote and their opinion matters not one whit.
They are irrelevant...all of them.
Only a fool believes that is worth war with Russia.
Put the potential costs on the other side of the ledger.
All true but the powerful allies closed a pincer. The Germans were cooked. Last hurrah.
Ukraine possibly has done the same?
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.