Do you believe in Democracy? Ukrainian edition

[Missourian]

You have given me the impression that your military training (and experience) in planning (for example) was/is superior to mine. I think that's true, isn't it? So, I am a little bit surprised that you are not taking Russian strategy into consideration. Do you play chess? I do, but I don't enjoy playing. Anyway, the side that captures the king wins. How many queens, and rooks, and bishops and knights and pawns that left on the board are insignificant. THINK NOW: What are Putin's goals? Don't make me tell you. I'm sure you can figure it out. Putin is WAY AHEAD of everyone else. Don't be distracted by a little "razzle dazzle" in the periphery. Keep your eyes on the prize.

I think this all comes down to two things, Sevastopol and Russia's natural gas monopoly.

Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq as satellite countries also served this purpose. And as those satellites have fallen, the grasp on that monopoly becomes weaker and weaker.

Without the natural gas and natural resource currency and security that Russia leverages, they will eventually be reduced to a third world country and Europe will consume them.

Russia lobbies to get Maidan elected to secure the lease on Servastopol and to block Ukraine from joining NATO.

Western powers masterminded the overthrow of Maidan.

Russia took Crimea. And that would have been that. Russia could safely project naval power and export goods into the Black Sea.

But Ukraine cut off the fresh water supply to Crimea... and that led to the invasion.

That's my take.

 

[Missourian]

Naw.

"The potential of", when someone says this, I know there is a good chance that they are white. White people are smart in a lot of ways, but in some aspects they are hopelessly retarded.

Putin was not reacting to any "potential" whatever. He was reacting to what he perceived as bad intentions of NATO. Now, you can argue about whether his reaction was appropriate or not, what you can't deny is that, he perceived bad intent, and so he acted. It was not because of something rational like, "Hmm. I have calculated the odds, and it appears to me that there is a good chance (aka, potential) of something bad happening, so I am gonna ___".






I'd say NATO had been provoking Russia, but just not in a traditional way, as in, they were technically not sending armies in to Russia..etc.

It's dumb to say "unprovoked", anyway, Any time there is armed conflict between nations, if you go back far enough, you will reach a point where you can identify the country who, "started" the fight, which technically makes it the unprovoked aggressor. But, I am pretty sure that there are other things, that happened prior to that, that led up to their "unprovoked" attack.

There is covert warfare and overt warfare. Russia engages in the covert as willingly and ably as the west. Being outmaneuvered and forced into open warfare means Russia failed.

 

[GLASNOST]

I think this all comes down to two things, Sevastopol and Russia's natural gas monopoly.

Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq as satellite countries also served this purpose. And as those satellites have fallen, the grasp on that monopoly becomes weaker and weaker.

Without the natural gas and natural resource currency and security that Russia leverages, they will eventually be reduced to a third world country and Europe will consume them.

Russia lobbies to get Maidan elected to secure the lease on Servastopol and to block Ukraine from joining NATO.

Western powers masterminded the overthrow of Maidan.

Russia took Crimea. And that would have been that. Russia could safely project naval power and export goods into the Black Sea.

But Ukraine cut off the fresh water supply to Crimea... and that led to the invasion.

That's my take.

I agree with 98% of it.

 

[GLASNOST]

OK 99%.

 

[Donald H]

I think this all comes down to two things, Sevastopol and Russia's natural gas monopoly.

Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq as satellite countries also served this purpose. And as those satellites have fallen, the grasp on that monopoly becomes weaker and weaker.

Without the natural gas and natural resource currency and security that Russia leverages, they will eventually be reduced to a third world country and Europe will consume them.

Russia lobbies to get Maidan elected to secure the lease on Servastopol and to block Ukraine from joining NATO.

Western powers masterminded the overthrow of Maidan.

Russia took Crimea. And that would have been that. Russia could safely project naval power and export goods into the Black Sea.

But Ukraine cut off the fresh water supply to Crimea... and that led to the invasion.

That's my take.

Enugh of the US bullshit on trying to make Russia another third world victim.

Russia is now a superpower that is not dependent on the US and it's criminal partners. The Brics are more than half the world and China is the world's leading economy.

America is getting one last chance at peaceful coexistence.

 

[Doc7505]

I'll be very angry if that happens. I am a war veteran myself and I do not want to see any of my 3 sons go through that shit.

Not even Poland. Bielarus will crush Poland within weeks.


No.

Let Russia complete its original goals and negociate or refuse everything else.

~~~~~~
That is what President Trump trying avoid. Negotiating a peace agreement would be preferable to war in Europe...
However, we must be wary of Putin's goal and territorial ambitions.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater..

 

[Missourian]

Russia is now a superpower

Sorry, Donald, but that assessment has no basis in reality. If the White Army had defeated the Red Army a century ago, Russia may well have been a sustainable superpower. But that didn't happen and the Soviet experiment set them back five decades.

Russia should have the manufacturing potential to turn out hundreds of advanced T-14 tanks.

The 14 stands for 2014, the year they came into production, eleven years ago. What it really stands is the number of T-14s that have been produced in the last decade. Instead of state of the art tanks, what are the Russians using in Ukraine? T-62 and T-72s from the boneyard...

Russia is pulling its last old tanks out of storage

This would be the equivalent of the US fielding Korean War era M48 Patton tanks in Iraq.

Would we do that? NO! And we're half-a-world away, across a vast ocean. Russia is fighting on it's front porch.

We have not 14 of our most advanced Main Battle Tanks...but almost 5,000! And 700 of those are the most advanced model produced after 2020.

THAT'S a superpower. Russia is not only not in the same ballpark. They are not even in the same hemisphere the ballpark is located.

 

[Missourian]

OK 99%.

Anything you would add? I'm looking down space. You're in the forward observer's position. Satint can never replace humint.

 

[Doc7505]

Not sure what you are trying to say, freckle boy. You mean that Putin was the aggressor?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who started shit, I just don't understand why US has to involve herself in foreign wars. Yeah I get it, the current climate is that it is perfectly acceptable, and sometimes even desirable, to go overseas and meddle in other countries' affairs. It seems that people are very stupid and easily fooled by their politicians. These politicians keep their own offspring safely secured in some mansion, and they send other people's children to die in a war thousands of miles away. And people believe that they are doing the "right" thing. I cannot believe the stupidity of it all.

~~~~~~
That is what Democrats have done...
Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine were indeed motivated by their pro-Western governments and aspirations to join NATO, which he perceives as a threat to Russia's influence and security. He has long sought to maintain a sphere of influence over these countries to prevent NATO's expansion near Russia's borders.
His land grab aspirations in Ukraine involve a desire to expand Russian territory and influence, particularly following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict that has resulted in significant portions of Ukrainian land being under Russian control. His actions are seen as part of a broader imperial ambition to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and erase its national identity.
The loss of one million or more Russians to achieve his goals are inconsequential.

How Obama Allowed Putin to Invade Ukraine: A Study

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is President Obama's fault, as Obama critics have been hasty to point out. But what Obama specifically did is still up for contention. Here are the nominees.

www.theatlantic.com

xxxxxxxxxx​

The Obama Doctrine and Ukraine | Brookings

In his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, President Obama said Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow in a way that it is not for the United States. But the United States could have done more to help Kiev resist the Kremlin’s aggression, without engaging in war with Russia.

www.brookings.edu

 

[GLASNOST]

Enugh of the US bullshit on trying to make Russia another third world victim.

Russia is now a superpower that is not dependent on the US and it's criminal partners. The Brics are more than half the world and China is the world's leading economy.

America is getting one last chance at peaceful coexistence.

We only know that Brics is a good idea but we still don't know if it will work, if the US can destroy it, or even if some of the Brics members can be trusted. It'll be a long road.

 

[GLASNOST]

~~~~~~
That is what President Trump trying avoid. Negotiating a peace agreement would be preferable to war in Europe...

I agree with that.

However, we must be wary of Putin's goal and territorial ambitions.

We must be wary of everyone's goals and ambitions. Putin's (on the surface anyway) are transparent. The main obscure points are those clouded by the Western MSM.

 

[GLASNOST]

Satint can never replace humint.

I don't understand.

 

[GLASNOST]

~~~~~~
That is what Democrats have done...
Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine were indeed motivated by their pro-Western governments and aspirations to join NATO, which he perceives as a threat to Russia's influence and security. He has long sought to maintain a sphere of influence over these countries to prevent NATO's expansion near Russia's borders.

Agree.

His land grab aspirations in Ukraine involve a desire to expand Russian territory and influence, particularly following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict that has resulted in significant portions of Ukrainian land being under Russian control. His actions are seen as part of a broader imperial ambition to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and erase its national identity.

I don't agree with this.

 

[Missourian]

I don't understand.

Satellite Intelligence vs Human Intelligence.

Early in my military career during training we had an exercise that underscored this very point. We had access to all forms of intelligence gathering techniques...and they all, like everything Army related, have acronyms.


So, we're supposed to determine the likely avenue of attack.

We have a satellite image in the briefing packet with a wide river and a few bridges. After discussion over satellite imagery that revealed the Opposition Force has tanks but no engineers or bridging units, we chose the most like bridge that needed to be fortified and the second most likely, and the third.

So the instructors drive us out to the site, a section of river 30 feet wide where we witnessed 10 tanks fiord the "river" that only turned out to be a foot deep. With a river rocks floor. All we had to do was task a forward unit to scout the river between the bridges, and we would have had the vital piece of intelligence we needed...but we believed in what our "eyes" told us from 60,000 feet.

An overview will never beat a view.

Satint can never replace Humint.

Lesson learned.

 

[Missourian]

I don't agree with this.

Me either. As both the Soviets and we Americans learned in Afghanistan...defeating an enemy and holding their land indefinitely are two very different things.

Russia is taking extra land in Ukraine only to use as leverage in the negotiating process. They will return it in exchange for certain guarantees, such as the annexation of the ethnically Russian regions, water rights and a buffer for Crimea and a guarantee Ukraine will never join NATO.

That's my opinion.

 

[GLASNOST]

Satint can never replace humint.

I don't understand.

Satellite Intelligence vs Human Intelligence.

Oh.

Early in my military career during training we had an exercise that underscored this very point. We had access to all forms of intelligence gathering techniques...and they all, like everything Army related, have acronyms.

FTA . ETS. MOS. SOS (shit on a shingle). KP. RA. (Regular Army). PFC. E4 (..... etc.), CO. R & R. AWOL.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Satellite Intelligence vs Human Intelligence.

Early in my military career during training we had an exercise that underscored this very point. We had access to all forms of intelligence gathering techniques...and they all, like everything Army related, have acronyms.


So, we're supposed to determine the likely avenue of attack.

We have a satellite image in the briefing packet with a wide river and a few bridges. After discussion over satellite imagery that revealed the Opposition Force has tanks but no engineers or bridging units, we chose the most like bridge that needed to be fortified and the second most likely, and the third.

So the instructors drive us out to the site, a section of river 30 feet wide where we witnessed 10 tanks fiord the "river" that only turned out to be a foot deep. With a river rocks floor. All we had to do was task a forward unit to scout the river between the bridges, and we would have had the vital piece of intelligence we needed...but we believed in what our "eyes" told us from 60,000 feet.

An overview will never beat a view.

Satint can never replace Humint.

Lesson learned.

This sounds to me like, whoever was in charge of taking the satellite images, did a poor job of it. Either he didn't zoom in enough (Keep in mind that I am speaking as a complete layperson, I have no military experience, but I hope you get my point), which would explain why the river was only a foot deep, or he didn't take enough images, or some other kind of error resulting from the human operator.

I am not saying that satint is superior to humint or anything, I am just saying that, when you say "Satint can never replace Humint", which sounds to me like, we should always complement Satint with Humit. There is nothing wrong with this, but it kind of makes me wonder, if we always have to combine Satint with Humint, what's the point of developing Satint, then? Isn't the point of developing Satint, so that we can protect human lives, you know, not having to send actual soldiers to scout out areas and stuff like that?

 

[MayorQuimby]

Sorry, Donald, but that assessment has no basis in reality. If the White Army had defeated the Red Army a century ago, Russia may well have been a sustainable superpower. But that didn't happen and the Soviet experiment set them back five decades.

Russia should have the manufacturing potential to turn out hundreds of advanced T-14 tanks.

The 14 stands for 2014, the year they came into production, eleven years ago. What it really stands is the number of T-14s that have been produced in the last decade. Instead of state of the art tanks, what are the Russians using in Ukraine? T-62 and T-72s from the boneyard...

Russia is pulling its last old tanks out of storage

This would be the equivalent of the US fielding Korean War era M48 Patton tanks in Iraq.

Would we do that? NO! And we're half-a-world away, across a vast ocean. Russia is fighting on it's front porch.

We have not 14 of our most advanced Main Battle Tanks...but almost 5,000! And 700 of those are the most advanced model produced after 2020.

THAT'S a superpower. Russia is not only not in the same ballpark. They are not even in the same hemisphere the ballpark is located.

Hi Misso,

I am not doubting you, but I just don't think that anybody in the West can say with certainty like the kind you just exhibited, about Russia's military prowess. Russia isn't technically at war with the US, but it is still not the friendliest country with your country. Why would they give you details about their military? And even if they did, it's probably not totally believable.

 

[Donald H]

Sorry, Donald, but that assessment has no basis in reality. If the White Army had defeated the Red Army a century ago, Russia may well have been a sustainable superpower. But that didn't happen and the Soviet experiment set them back five decades.

Russia should have the manufacturing potential to turn out hundreds of advanced T-14 tanks.

The 14 stands for 2014, the year they came into production, eleven years ago. What it really stands is the number of T-14s that have been produced in the last decade. Instead of state of the art tanks, what are the Russians using in Ukraine? T-62 and T-72s from the boneyard...

Russia is pulling its last old tanks out of storage

This would be the equivalent of the US fielding Korean War era M48 Patton tanks in Iraq.

Would we do that? NO! And we're half-a-world away, across a vast ocean. Russia is fighting on it's front porch.

We have not 14 of our most advanced Main Battle Tanks...but almost 5,000! And 700 of those are the most advanced model produced after 2020.

THAT'S a superpower. Russia is not only not in the same ballpark. They are not even in the same hemisphere the ballpark is located.

The latest is the superpower with the most and the best drones and the most and best unstoppable missiles.

What a superpower isn't anymore is one with a large navy of sitting ducks. Make any sense to you?

If there's a war started by America against Russia, Iran, and the Brics, America may be a superpower for about 15 minutes.

Do you think that the Zionist regime can still attack Iran and survive? I think that's the best question to entertain now.

 

[theHawk]

Because 68% of Ukrainians agree that it's time to end the Russo-Ukraine War though diplomatic settlement.

Are the people of Ukraine the final arbitrators of what is right for Ukraine, or should Zelensky ignore the will of the people "for their own good?"

I don't expect too many response. It's one heck of a conundrum for Ukrainian War supporters on the left.

Support democracy and admit President Trump was right?

Or support Fascism and admit they don't really give a damn about democracy when it doesn't serve their political purpose.



View attachment 1148569

Ukrainian Support for War Effort Collapses

New data from Ukraine show the public favors ending the war with Russia through negotiations, as support for fighting until victory has plummeted.

news.gallup.com

Very few Ukrainians are willing to fight over land in eastern Ukraine that had been full of ethnic Russians for generations.

Hence Russia wants it more and is willing to fight for it.