Posted on 09/13/2024 1:58:20 AM PDT by RandFan
The headline in this morning’s Kommersant newspaper captured the drama.
“Vladimir Putin draws his red line.”
Will the West cross it? And, if it does, how will Russia respond?
Speaking in St Petersburg, President Putin sent a clear warning to the West: don’t allow Ukraine to use your long-range missiles to strike Russian territory.
Moscow, he said, would view that as the “direct participation” of Nato countries in the war in Ukraine.
“It would substantially change the very essence, the nature of the conflict,” the Kremlin leader continued.
“This will mean that Nato countries, the USA and European states, are fighting with Russia.”
He claimed that, for missile launches into Russia, Ukraine would require data from Western satellites and that only servicemen from Nato member states would be able to “input flight missions into these missile systems”.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Putin was stupid to take the bait and now he can't end the war because nobody will negotiate
All your talk is pointless.
The Ukraine job in this war was fight a proxy war on Ukraine soil where Ukrainians fought and died another country was destroyed on behalf of US and NATO interests
This is from direct quotes by American and NATO leadership.
This war was never about winning or losing is was about external player pitting Russia and the Ukraine against each other for their mutual destruction
The goal was to weaken Russia, kill as many Russians as possible and force regime change
The goal in Ukraine was to destroy as much of Ukraine as possible and kill as many Ukrainians as possible so foreigbn carpet baggers can come in and buy up the wreckage at fractions of pennies on the dollar and take control of the Ukraine away from the Ukrainians
It's time for the war to end
These are what could be called stunts. They are not serious military initiatives which can be sustained, long term. The aim of everything currently on the agenda for Ukraine and its puppet masters, is regime change in Russia. The objective is to give Putin a bloody nose and in so doing, foster a popular uprising against him.
Removal of Putin is the focus of NATO/Ukraine efforts. Nobody believes that territory will be reclaimed by military means. The aim is the installation of a new Russian president who will voluntarily return it, apologize and promise to hold Gay Pride month every June. They're looking to build a Slavic version of your own miserable country.
There was a mid-level insurgency taking place in the Donbass region. There was artillery shelling on both sides. Russia was providing troops, weaponry, and ammunition to foment hostilities and ensure their continuation.
It was a messy, bloody situation - but it was a purely internal affair of Ukraine. If Russia hadn't interceded, it would have remained a small, localized conflict - or petered out, eventually.
It in no wise legitimized Russia launching a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation.
Regards,
This is right up there with "Putin should just go back home".
“Putin should just go back home”
If by this you mean all world leaders should respect international borders, yes, not attacking other countries means Putin (among others) should just go back home.
Investors in Ukraine call new red line a double down investing no Ukraine bank has failed yet.
Biden winks
That's quite the fantasy world that you live in!
I see no possibility of liberating the Donbas and the Crimea “immediately.” But if America and Western Europe support Ukraine with the good stuff ... Ukraine will gain the upper hand and restore their 1991 borders. As a side effect, it may also bring about a new Russian government that is not rehabilitating Lenin and Stalin while building a cult of personality around its current murderous dictator.
Ukraine, by surviving to this point has already achieved one of the greatest military upsets in history. The one-time-zone country has humiliated the eleven-time-zone country just as Japan and Finland achieved earlier.
In the effort to get Putin back across his border, what level of force should US taxpayers support?
“First off, bombing civilian cities has a name - terrorism.”
I’m sure the people in cities bombed flat by the USAAF/RAF in WWII would wholeheartedly agree.
We got rid of slavery, gave women the right to vote, and got Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea and Taiwan to become democratic countries. These are big pluses.
We tried and failed to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into democratic countries through the use of force. These were big minuses.
So, I can’t say we have always been successful in our idealistic vision, first expressed in our Declaration of Independence. What you call fanciful. I think we can agree that our idealistic vision remains as revolutionary today as it was in 1776.
Success requires combining the idealistic with the practical given the circumstances involved. It also requires patience, taking what is given, and avoiding gambles.
“First off, bombing civilian cities has a name - terrorism.”
I’m sure the people in cities bombed flat by the USAAF/RAF in WWII would wholeheartedly agree.
Actually, they did.
One of my close friends was a German national whose earliest memories was getting bombed by USAAF/RAF in WWII and watching cities destroyed and people killed
He called it the war crimes approach to fighting a war.
We are currently escalating the Ukrainian conflict to the war crimes level of tit for tat vengeance and retribution
This has never led to any good.
We have desperate politicians supplying dangerous weapons to even more desperate Ukrainian leaders who have lost the support of the Ukrainian people.
Desperate people do desperate things
It’s time to end this insanity before it spins out of control
We as a country are in danger of "electing" an open and notorious whore (who got no votes in the primary process) to the presidency of the United States.
This, after having a committee of anonymous puppeteers pulling the strings of a senile old grifting pedo for four years.
What a country!
I’m voting for Donald Trump. I trust him with figuring out how to end the war.
Trump is a tough guy, and we’re going to need a tough guy to deal with Putin (and others). Trump is also a deal-maker.
Trump figured out a way for the ethnic Albanians and ethnic Serbs to deal with Kosovo. He brought the Sunni Arabs and Israel into peaceful relations. While I have outlined some concepts in this thread concerning Ukraine (and have some other considerations that could be included in a settlement), the truth is we only have one president at a time.
Right now, we have a weak president who thinks like neo-cons do, that war is an extension of diplomacy.
We and the world need a strong U.S. President who think of war as the break-down of diplomacy, not an extension of diplomacy, who adheres to the principle of peace through strength, and who naturally thinks of the win-win opportunities in deal-making.
Maybe not.
Only Zeepers and Western MSM can read Putin's mind, even though it is Putin that lives rent free in their heads 24/7.
The post offered no information on what were the NEW consequences in the NEW Red Line, so I begrudging clicked on the BBC Degenerates' link, and no surprise, there was no new information there, either.
Just BBC Degenerates whom also can read Putin's mind, (when they're not thinking about Buggering Children or Protecting Muslim Terrorist Knifemen in the UK).
We'll just have to wait and see what happens while Billions in US Taxpayer Money goes down the Zelensky Laundromat Craphole, rather than to US Veterans, Citizens, Infrastructure and Civilization.
That sure seems like the US Losing as opposed to the MSM Narrative, however, don't believe your Lying Eyes, instead, hang on Zeepers every word.
I see you prefer when the President has a whore, that he keeps in a government mansion on the Black Sea, to a country that has a Vice President who is a whore.
Such is life. Our choices aren’t always ideal.
Not my country, not my problem.
My country has a presidential candidate who is a whore, and her Gaslight Media is pretending that she's a combination of The Virgin Mary and Marilyn vos Savant.
As for casualties, the nature of warfare is such that when peer or near peer adversaries do battle, attackers have greater casualties because they require greater numbers and have to expose themselves to enemy fire. In doing so, they offer an abundance of targets to the enemy.
In addition, traditional Russian battle tactics are insensitive to casualties. In contrast, Ukraine has adopted NATO style tactics that try to minimize casualties.
Even worse for Russia, they lost a large slice of their best troops, weapons, and military equipment in the first months of the invasion. The resulting shortages have limited Russia in their effort to create new formations and combat power. As a result, their troops are less well-trained and suffer greater losses.
Is today “Opposites Day”?
“As for casualties, the nature of warfare is such that when peer or near peer adversaries do battle...”
Well, since you are helpless, I won’t comment any further to you only to say that if you think Ukraine is a peer of the Russian military, then you are completely helpless. And modern weaponry makes the old rules of warfare obselete.
And, according to the experts not in the MSM, Ukraine has suffered many more deaths. That is why a tremendous percentage of the population has fled to other countries to never return.
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.