Posted on 02/15/2024 3:15:55 AM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
“Chagingthe goal post”, that is an interesting comment.
I could say the same about your “analysis “ of the situation.
The great goodwill gestures of retreating from Kiev (without installing new govt), kherson, and Kharkiv were all part of the plan???
Two years into the war and two cities are taken, but none of the “annexed” territories completely occupied?
Yes let’s talk changing the goal posts
I am sure losing 1/3 of Black Sea fleet was part of the plan, losing many aircraft was part of the plan, having to rely on nk and iran for war effort was part of the plan, emptying soviet military equipment stocks was part of the plan, T-55s on the field of battle were part of the plan.
Muskova may indeed gain territory in the end, but what have they gained.
Maybe you can put your name in for apartment wait list in avdiivka, I hear there are some real fix er up opportunities there.
No,
The Goal posts were defined by two groups of folks:
1. The (political) ruling class which decided to expand NATO into Ukraine. This will not happen.
2. The (military) leadership which had their defined goal to prevent Russia from seizing the Eastern ethnic Russian once Ukrainian lands. They failed to achieve this by losing the land and then not recapturing it in the counter offensive.
***That is by definition “losing.”***
As to the rest of your junk, and it is junk, those are rationalizations to pretend there is some sort of success in failure, not unlike post Vietnam where many also tried to somehow carve out some sort of victory in what was failure. We did NOT attain our stated political and military objectives.
As to the use of older military hardware. We also use old junk. We even in the US Army use a M113 from 1958. We use a M109 which is ancient... And before you say, but but but they have been upgraded, well so have those T55s. Those arguments are sorry to say it like this, “idiot arguments.”
However, when you start a war, and you end up losing even more than your wager, i.e. (EU membership is lost, Ukraines economy and infrastructure are badly damaged, you have mass refugees many never to return...) then it becomes an “abject failure.” You see, the wager was Eastern Ukraine, that is what the West was gambeling with when we tried to push this NATO BS down the Russians throat, but it’s us that ended up losing far more than just Eastern Ukraine. Imagine you go to a poker game with the intent to gamble with $100 and win big, but end up losing your home and car while in Vegas. See how that’s an “abject failure?”
This gamble (push NATO and hope Russia aquiesces) did not go our way.
Let me explain to you what is going to happen next:
1. Russia will keep the pressure on, because if the West wants to play the “bleed Russia” game, then Russia will contuinue to slowly eat up Ukraine one village and city at a time. They have to create a cost/price in order to have us stop.
2. Once this war ends, you will see an endless flood of Hollywood victorious Ukraine war movies where some 130 lbs secret American super spy chick (woman now have to be the action hero) with pouty lips, tight pants, a happy go lucky LGBTQIA side kick, ethnic diverse supporting charachters, beat up 240 lbs Russians while saving orphans from an impending unprovoked Russian attack. No worries, you’ll feel better about yourself soon enough.
I warned you guys even before the war started (go back in my posts) what will happen if we keep going down this road: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
This was (((ALL))) predictable, unnecessary and preventable.
A total waste of life and wealth.
I told you guys 4 months ago that this war would end in 6 months. That still stands. What will now happen is that the West, the ruling political class is coming to grips with reality (there is a delay). Ukraine won’t have some glorious victory, their land is LOST, much of the population is LOST and it ain’t coming back. The war is costing us military hardware and money too. People are tired of this. Our Euro allies are economically suffering because of it. The Russians will keep the pressure on (lightly), and we will somehow come up with a way where we can end this without losing face sooner rather than later since we are also heading into an election year.
Yes that is their goal, what was putins, has Putin succeeded, certainly not yet
But time will tell
Saying either side has failed is like saying Allie’s have failed June 5th
There are no morals in war. War is an immoral act. The best you can do if you go to war is to make sure you have a Just War. When we pushed this into a war by putting the Russians in a position where they can articulate a realistic security threat to themselves, we lost that argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
Up until October 2021, we can make the argument that arming, training, and feeding Ukraine intel was defensive and intended to prevent a true war of aggression by Russia (i.e. create a cost if Russia invades). But once we pulled the lever on unconditional NATO membership in October 2021 and tried to fastrack this, ignoring anything the Russians said, we lost that argument entirely. At that point we became the antagonist of war and threatened someone else (yes, putting tanks and missiles on Russia's border is a threat to them even, if in your mind we're always the good guys).
Post Cold War, and especially post 9-11, the US has changed dramatically. We today have an expeditionary military used to further our political and economic agenda in a vacuum of any true national security argument. We have become offensive (Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Venezuela 2020) not defensive and our cause is seldom our own security. (1) Post Cold War left the US as the only true worlds super power. This created a situation where there are no consequences for our actions. We act with impunity, break conventions, withdraw from agreements, lie, cheat, are hypocrites and simply do what we want since the ultimate underwriter of a foreign policy is the military. (2) Post 9-11 what began as a GWOT (a term no longer used) morphed into our policy makers using our military as a foreign legion in pursuit of economic and political interests. Instead of the GWOT drawing down, our huge defense and intel budgets remained, our large oversea footprint continued, and we simply began to shift to new targets that have NOTHING to do with our national security in reality, example: Syria, Venezuela, attacking Libya, now Ukraine...
Back to Ukraine: You nor anyone else can articulate a viable national security argument for what we did. Because there isn't one.
What the proponents of this stupid war are left with are Cold War boogieman arguments that are not even remotely based on a realistic capability of the Russian military nor realistic regards their economy and political system.
What you also cannot realistically argue, is that we Americans are wealthier, safer, or more free because of this.
So what was this war? It was pure arrogance. We are strong (political, economic, military), Russia is weak, and we do what we want.
And in the meantime, we talk about moral BS causes like democracy, human rights, sovereignty, all while we literally support kingdoms in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have mainland China (a single party communist regime with the a rights record about as bad as it comes) as our #1 trade partner, as our most favored trade partner, who we helped into the WTO (the same year tanks rolled of pro democracy students on Tienanmen square)... Did we care about Libya's or Iraq's sovereignty when we invaded or attacked them? Do we care about some of the Pacific Islands sovereignty whom we bully to prevent the Chinese from gaining naval ports in the Pacific? These ideas are today selectively pulled from our @ss whenever we want to go to war and have no justification.
A few last points:
There are no morals in war. War is an immoral act. The best you can do if you go to war is to make sure you have a Just War. When we pushed this into a war by putting the Russians in a position where they can articulate a realistic security threat to themselves, we lost that argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
Up until October 2021, we can make the argument that arming, training, and feeding Ukraine intel was defensive and intended to prevent a true war of aggression by Russia (i.e. create a cost if Russia invades). But once we pulled the lever on unconditional NATO membership in October 2021 and tried to fastrack this, ignoring anything the Russians said, we lost that argument entirely. At that point we became the antagonist of war and threatened someone else (yes, putting tanks and missiles on Russia’s border is a threat to them even, if in your mind we’re always the good guys).
Post Cold War, and especially post 9-11, the US has changed dramatically. We today have an expeditionary military used to further our political and economic agenda in a vacuum of any true national security argument. We have become offensive (Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Venezuela 2020) not defensive and our cause is seldom our own security. (1) Post Cold War left the US as the only true worlds super power. This created a situation where there are no consequences for our actions. We act with impunity, break conventions, withdraw from agreements, lie, cheat, are hypocrites and simply do what we want since the ultimate underwriter of a foreign policy is the military. (2) Post 9-11 what began as a GWOT (a term no longer used) morphed into our policy makers using our military as a foreign legion in pursuit of economic and political interests. Instead of the GWOT drawing down, our huge defense and intel budgets remained, our large oversea footprint continued, and we simply began to shift to new targets that have NOTHING to do with our national security in reality, example: Syria, Venezuela, attacking Libya, now Ukraine...
Back to Ukraine: You nor anyone else can articulate a viable national security argument for what we did. Because there isn’t one.
What the proponents of this stupid war are left with are Cold War boogieman arguments that are not even remotely based on a realistic capability of the Russian military nor realistic regards their economy and political system.
What you also cannot realistically argue, is that we Americans are wealthier, safer, or more free because of this.
So what was this war? It was pure arrogance. We are strong (political, economic, military), Russia is weak, and we do what we want.
And in the meantime, we talk about moral BS causes like democracy, human rights, sovereignty, all while we literally support kingdoms in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have mainland China (a single party communist regime with the a rights record about as bad as it comes) as our #1 trade partner, as our most favored trade partner, who we helped into the WTO (the same year tanks rolled of pro democracy students on Tienanmen square)... Did we care about Libya’s or Iraq’s sovereignty when we invaded or attacked them? Do we care about some of the Pacific Islands sovereignty whom we bully to prevent the Chinese from gaining naval ports in the Pacific? These ideas are today selectively pulled from our @ss whenever we want to go to war and have no justification.
***Only in this war you have limited objectives.***
Russia is not looking for the complete capitulation of Ukraine, nor are they really interested in taking Kiev and the more nationalist areas, they do not want to really destroy more than necessary (it's one of their major trade partners, 1/3 of the people there have family ties to Russia, they speak a similar language, many are Orthodox...)... This was a war Russia did not want but was from their perspective forced to have because of Western meddling in Ukraine and military expansion Eastward which threatens them.
But Ukraine is cooked.
The question now is just how many more people (Ukrainians) our leaders want to send to their graves before they end this. While we talk about “sovereignty,” the reality is that Ukraine's leaders were hand picked by us, their finances are run by us, they depend on our intel, our weapons, our money, our training, our political backing (pushing allies to help, sanctions of Russia etc)... If we say end it, it ends. Trump isn't kidding when he says he can end this in 24 hours.
Can we keep it going? I suspect for while, Ukraine is scratching bottom in trying to get warm bodies to stuff into uniform, but I think they probably can hold on for a while. It's hard to tell because while you have inflated and total BS casualty reports for the Russians in our MSM, you have a veil of secrecy and silence regards Ukraine and their manpower and losses. Occasionally you get a report where you get some credible, empirical indicators (example the leaks which Newsweek publicized), but most is JUNK. However:
***Continuing this war will no longer change the outcome.***
In gamble, after the hand is dealt and wagers are made, people can fold, but eventually there comes a point where you have to show your hand and you can't change your mind anymore at that point. That's already happened. The play has been made.
But to answer your question, yes Putin got what he wanted:
1. If the West is going to purge Russian influence form Ukraine (that's what Maiden really was), then Russia will take those areas of Ukraine where they see they have a claim.
2. Russia wants to weaken Ukraine and the military build up which was happening there to the point where they no longer perceive them as a threat. That has been accomplished.
3. They want to create a punitive cost for Ukraine, i.e. make Ukraine think twice before they try this again. I'm sure that was accomplished.
4. Send a message to the West - stop trying to expand NATO into former Soviet and border states. We did NOT receive that message in 2008 with the Republic of Georgia, we didn't receive the message in Ukraine 2014, but I am sure we have received the message today. Russia isn't kidding, do not try to put tanks and missiles on their border. They do not want that and are willing to take military action to prevent such if need be.
You need to realize, this is a limited campaign. It's not total war and about total defeat of an enemy. This is the use of military force in order to achieve political ends. It is literally Clausewitz 101: “war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means...”
Just curious, if Russia is not a threat to anyone, and NATO has been on the border of Russia for years and never attacked, why does taking Ukraine or parts of Ukraine help Russia
Russia was trading freely with the west, west was investing in Russia, much of that is gone now along with large portions of Russian military equipment and soviet legacy equipment along with that little thing of 10s of thousands killed and wounded
In a war with NATO the advantages Russia has will be minimal.
They succeed now because of artillery and air power advantages( degraded a bit over the last few days), and manpower. A war with NATO would eliminate air annd artillery advantage pretty quick, and industrial targets that Russia can’t protect against drones now would likely be hit as well.
Good response, but hard for me to get past the “make Ukraine think twice about doing this again “
Don’t recall Ukraine invading Russia, or do you mean instead of bending over, resisting? For part 3 of this story?
I will add one other question, is it you position that if the march on Kiev had taken Kiev that Putin would have goodwill gestured his way out of there.
Personally I think the “never wanted Kiev” is making lemonade out of lemons
Word on the street hitler never really wanted Stalingrad….
Here’s what’s especially nasty about this war:
—We have no true self defense or security argument.
—We did lie (NATO East expansion), we did go back on a treaty (ballistic missile treaty which plays a role in all of this), we did cheat (Minsk - even though we didn’t sign to it), and we are constantly trying to push the Turks to violate Moneteux.
—We did back a bunch of right wing whack-jobs.
—We are relying heavily on a mercenary army which we in turn pay for (Ukraine is even paying them in USD).
—We are willing to gamble really high if it’s with other peoples lives.
—We had our own government censoring what you get to see and hear so that you feel the right way about all of this and our MSM cooperated.
—We did coerce other nations into sanctioning Russia (example: Pakistan, Egypt...) and some of these nations are suffering from this.
—We did blow up a pipeline which an ally relies on and then of course lied about that too.
This does not look good for us. Folks in the US might see our actions of those of the knight in shining armor riding in to fight for democracy, justice, freedom and sovereignty, but the rest of the world does NOT see it like that. Only in those places where the Western media and government censors have control is that the prevailing perspective (North America, Europe and Australia).
As soon as you cross the border into Mexico you already have an entirely different view of this Ukraine war and our actions there. India, not a rosey picture, and in fact if you want to get some reports that aren’t censored by us but show the Russian perspective or talk about some of the less flattering aspects of this war they discuss it. The Middle East media... It’s a sad time when Al Jazeera basically writes an article which completely references US Congress and our own media years past, but our own media quickly and convienently forgot or even deletes some of this once we decided we’re supposed to wave the Ukraine flag: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment
How is a country in 2021 (thanks to us they now are building up) with:
—55% of our ground forces.
—47% of our air forces.
—43% of our naval forces.
—44% of our population.
—40% of the number of men reaching military age.
—Less industry.
—Less high tech.
—1/10 our defense budget.
—1/3 the size of our Intel Community.
—Heavily reliant on conscription. Loss of military institutional knowledge (high turn over) and generally lower morale in a conflict.
—1/10 our GDP, 1/5 our PPP.
—Less allies.
—Weaker allies. Belarus their most powerful ally has less military capability than the Netherlands.
Going to be this huge threat that conquers the West?
Make up your mind. Either Russia is this huge threat about to roll through the Fulda gap tomorrow, or they are a nation that is struggling to take a part of Ukraine.
The real reason why we even did our gamble with Ukraine and NATO is because we figure Russia is so weak as a conventional force, that after we spent the last 7 years building up Ukraine's military, the Russians will acquiesce to our will without a fight.
The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact are no more. This military threat that once existed is only today re-emerging on a much smaller scale because of a self fulfilling prophesy. Yes, we have (((succeeded))) at creating a sworn enemy.
Good response, but hard for me to get past the “make Ukraine think twice about doing this again “
Don’t recall Ukraine invading Russia, or do you mean instead of bending over, resisting? For part 3 of this story?
The cause of this war:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
I assure you, anyone in Ukraines leadership and even most the populace there might think twice about making such a move in the future.
Good response, but hard for me to get past the “make Ukraine think twice about doing this again “
Don’t recall Ukraine invading Russia, or do you mean instead of bending over, resisting? For part 3 of this story?
The cause of this war:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
I assure you, anyone in Ukraines leadership and even most the populace there might think twice about making such a move in the future.
Ukraine’s ties with Russia collapsed in 2014 after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Moscow-backed forces seized territory in eastern Ukraine that Kyiv wants back. Kyiv says some 14,000 people have been killed in fighting since then
Silly Ukranians just bend over for the muskovites/s
Occupying a people becomes a liability.
Russia went into Ukraine wanting to seize those areas that are majority ethnic Russian. Those areas will be much easier to hold in the long run with the majority of the local population neutral, sympathetic or even supportive of Russia's efforts.
Example, Azov as well as some of your saboteurs are being turned in by the locals, in fact when caught, in some cases the Russian FSB or military has to shield the Azov fighter from the locals who want to beat the guy in the street. One mans hero (as portrayed in the West) is another mans terrorist.
All you need to do is to look at a Ukrainian election map and what areas voted for the pro-Russian candidates, and where Russian is still spoken predominately or as a first language. Realize, the nationalists forbade Russian, so these statistics are muted. Also do not use any map post wars begin, the Ukrainians flooded the internet with new maps which show everyone wants to be a proud Ukrainian nationalist with the maps being all in blue and yellow. But those areas where they vote for the Russian candidate and speak Russian are the areas where Russia will have a much easier time.
Trying to take and hold Western nationalist Ukraine would be a royal pain in the @ss for Russia.
Kiev (>75% nationalist) is out of the area Russia wants to take. But yes, if Ukraine had not reinforced this area to fend off the Russian incursion, the Russians surely would have taken it. If you can sack the capital and with it humiliate the enemy, take out much of the senior cammand and control... A good diversion “forces” the enemy to react to you. In the process, in this case, Russia wanted forces pulled away from the Eastern and Southern areas where they actually want to take and hold the ground, where Ukraine knew the Russians are coming and had a well prepared plan, obstacles, cache sites, pre identified fighting positions, even had practiced/rehearsed...
UPDATEVIDEO COMMENTARY
18 Feb: Shocking Footage REVEALS THE REAL COST RUSSIANS PAID FOR AVDIIVKA | War in Ukraine Explained
Reporting from Ukraine
469K subscribers
Feb 19, 2024
6:31 Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNTC0H1zWwI
⚠️ Watch RFU in 20 languages: https://www.youtube.com/@RFU/channels
I am Ukrainian. My country has been invaded by Russia. In this video, I will tell you what happened on the seven-hundred-twenty-fifth day of the war.
Day 725: Feb 18
Today, the most important developments are taking place in the Avdiivka direction.
Last time, I told you that Ukrainian forces completed the first stage of the withdrawal process by leaving all isolated positions that stretched the front line and decreased the overall number of troops in Avdiivka by thirty percent.
This was the moment when the intensity of clashes reached unimaginable heights, as Russians were ordered to close the circle as fast as possible before Ukrainians managed to escape. According to Ukrainian fighters, they hadn’t even seen such big Russian assault units even during the Battle for Bakhmut, where the Wagner Group used cheap lives of their prisoners en masse.
However, since the information about thirty percent of evacuated personnel was primarily based on reports from Russian soldiers, their observations and estimates were lagging behind, and in reality, Ukrainians had already completed the second stage of withdrawal and were mostly located in the residential area.
That is why the Ukrainian fighters from the famous third assault brigade were not conducting assaults directed into the town, and focused on preventing Russians from advancing into the fields. Russian soldiers here aimed to cut off the last two retreat routes that went through the gully towards Lastochkine and a road to Sieverne.
Nonetheless, shortly after that, Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Syrskyi post-factum stated early in the morning on the seventeenth of February that Ukrainian forces withdrew from Avdiivka. This was exactly the time when a lot of combat footage started being released from both sides, which confirms the fact that the clashes were so tough that neither side had the time to post videos online.
The combat footage was shocking. One Russian soldier published a video showing how he was passing the outskirts of Avdiivka on his way to the contact line to storm the Ukrainian position. The footage showed multiple bodies with red tape, meaning the person belonged to the Russian assault units every couple of meters, and destroyed heavy equipment every couple of hundreds of meters.
The video lasted five minutes, and the number of corpses was stable and the two Russian soldiers said that out of four thousand soldiers in their brigade, only thirty percent survived thus far. For context, many military analysts were shocked when Russians claimed that they engage in assaults until the detachments incur up to thirty percent losses, and only then the detachments are rotated out and reconstituted. Thirty percent losses means complete loss of combat capability.
In Avdiivka, Russian brigades, which consist of four thousand soldiers each, incurred at least seventy percent losses, according to Russian soldiers who are fighting on the ground right now. With this in mind, the claims of Ukrainian fighters from the third assault brigade that their brigade was fighting against seven Russian brigades make much more sense.
Ukrainian fighters also recently got a chance to describe the dreadful close combat engagements inside the town. They said that Russians used a simple tactic – they gradually accumulated inside basements and houses as close to the contact line as possible, usually, it meant within ten meters from the houses with Ukrainian fighters, and then tried to make a rapid attack. Most Russian fighters were taken out from machine gun nests, which again explains such a high density of bodies per square meter from the previous footage.
According to Ukrainian fighters from the third assault brigade, during their short period of deployment, they reduced two Russian brigades virtually to zero. These were the days when Russian losses per day were once again reaching historic heights, surpassing one thousand two hundred soldiers, more than half of which came from Avdiivka.
Several hours ago, the Ukrainian General Staff released the estimates of the total Russian losses in Avdiivka. Ukrainian forces reportedly inflicted losses of almost fifty thousand personnel, three hundred sixty-four tanks, almost seven hundred fifty armored combat vehicles, two hundred fifty artillery systems, and five fighter-bombers between the tenth of October and the seventeenth of February.
*** Select the 3 horizontal dots to view the Complete Transcript [Below video/ top right corner]
IMHO, on this occasion, Ukraine paid a much higher price, because of the corruption of its leadership - with respect to the much needed, but not provided, leaders and leadership for the troops.
Leaders among the generals, specifically.
The loss of Avdiivka, is not on the scale of the loss of trust in the higher-command, among the troops.
I expect the troops to keep fighting, but their devotion to country and liberty, will not last long when poorly led and poorly supported.
What we saw in Avdiivka, was plenty of evidence to prove that 1,500 Ukraine troops (affirmed by Russian sources), were abandoned.
Tragically, the Ukraine government and high-command, is taking steps to “investigate” the lower level commanders . . . instead of showing some of the high-command, the door.
—What do you think is the probability of a non politically experienced (not just a little, but like none), young, comedian, with meager financial resources (at that level), a Jew in a nation where you have real antisemitic vibes, rising to power like a phoenix like he did?
—And, what do you think is the probability, given that he almost entirely relied on US media and social media to win the elections, is our boy, meaning “we installed him?” Do I need to inform you about our social media and big tech's involvement with the IC?
If you want to hear just a few names of the other people we flat out installed, just Google for the “leaked Nuland phone calls” where she very candidly discusses who she wants in what position in Ukraine and who she doesn't want.
Post Cold War, and as Ukraine began to become economically significant, with Western corporations setting up there, we took a big interest in that place. Especially when Ukraine was moving towards EU membership. In fact, them joining the EU and not NATO would be a big loss for us, since our influence in Europe is mostly through NATO and security policy.
Ukraine was divided and poor, and here comes a US State Department (which openly admits spending over $5 billion to influence the political landscape in Ukraine by 2014), a CIA, NSA, our MSM, big tech, military assistance, foreign aid, a plethora of NGOs (most with political agendas and some tied to the USG), and US business (also gets coordinated through the State Department and DoD) investing. ***What do you think happened to your Ukraine that doesn't bend over?***
2014, when we didn't like the election outcome, we staged a coupe. That is when we took over (but they aren't bent over and taking in the @ss if it's our LGBTQIA dic$). We began to purge all Russian influence and immediately began talking NATO... That is when Ukraine lost the Crimea. Now they lost 18% of their East and South. I think Ukraine understands by now, even if you don't.
I am an American. My country is being invaded by barbaric enemies from Third World countries who pour in through our unsecured borders.
Making sure these illegals have money, housing, food, healthcare, educations, clothing, etc., is more important to my government than helping my Brother Vets and me.
Securing Ukraine's border and funding their corrupt government by pouring billions into their country is more important to my government and ingrate zeepers than helping my Brother Vets and me.
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.