Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Russia, like the USSR, is one of the few countries whose word can be counted on. Allies, ALLIES, not enemies, did not fulfill their word to open the Second Front against Germany in 1942, 1943, the USSR promised to enter the war with Japan no later than three months after the end of the war with Germany. On August 9, 1945, the USSR declared war on Japan and in a true "blitzkrieg" Japan was defeated within 2 weeks.I am against any agreements with Russia. They are meaningless.
Indeed, i was talking to a friend two year ago about Ukraine and Nato,i told him Russia will never tolerate Ukraine in Nato and still believe that, that's one of the reasons for this War, they should have got the message after Russia took action in Crimea.He just knows that Russia won't tolerate neither further genocide of the Russian people in Ukraine not their attempts to join any hostile alliance.
I'm lecturing you of what the Ukrainians should think, I'm telling what the Ukrainian leadership does think and what Ukraine's allies do think, and you are just flailing out at anyone, the Ukrainian leadership, Ukraine's allies and the Ukrainian people who believe Ukraine can win this war and don't want to join you in surrendering to Russia.Yeah, lecture me what the Ukrainians think. It would be amusing.
And nevertheless, you refuse to answer my questions.
1. If Ukraine wins this war and pushes the Russian troops out of all Ukrainian territory. What makes you think that Russia won't mobilize its reserves, regroup its troops and won't start new offensive in 3, 5 or 10 years?
2. If after the 'win' Ukraine becoms a NATO member. What makes you think that NATO members will be eager to wage a war against Russia in 3, 5 or 10 years?
No one sober analyst believe that Ukraine actually can win a war against Russia, neither in the USA, nor in Ukraine. What they believe, is that they can steal some money in the process of the war. That's all.I'm lecturing you of what the Ukrainians should think, I'm telling what the Ukrainian leadership does think and what Ukraine's allies do think, and you are just flailing out at anyone, the Ukrainian leadership, Ukraine's allies and the Ukrainian people who believe Ukraine can win this war and don't want to join you in surrendering to Russia.
There are no guarantees that Russia would not regroup after being driven out of Ukraine and launch another attack, just as there are no guarantees China, Russia and NK won't try to invade SK again, and there are no guarantees that if Ukraine were to end "active fighting", whatever that is, Russia won't just push ahead and capture the rest of Ukraine. If you want forever guarantees, go to church and think about the afterlife because you won't find any answers in this world.
There are no absolute guarantees that all NATO members will send their troops to fight if Russia were to invade Poland or Finland or Germany, but NATO is geared to fight and Russian invasion of any NATO member and NATO forces are far more powerful than Russian forces and the only way Russia could prevail in such a contest is people like you who want to surrender, just as the only Ukraine can fail in this war is people like you who want to surrender.
They all believe Russia can be driven from Ukraine, but the differ on how long it will take and on what weapons will be required.No one sober analyst believe that Ukraine actually can win a war against Russia, neither in the USA, nor in Ukraine. What they believe, is that they can steal some money in the process of the war. That's all.
We are not in a church, man, and here is no place for believing. There is logic and common sense.I'm lecturing you of what the Ukrainians should think, I'm telling what the Ukrainian leadership does think and what Ukraine's allies do think, and you are just flailing out at anyone, the Ukrainian leadership, Ukraine's allies and the Ukrainian people who believe Ukraine can win this war and don't want to join you in surrendering to Russia.
There are no guarantees that Russia would not regroup after being driven out of Ukraine and launch another attack, just as there are no guarantees China, Russia and NK won't try to invade SK again, and there are no guarantees that if Ukraine were to end "active fighting", whatever that is, Russia won't just push ahead and capture the rest of Ukraine. If you want forever guarantees, go to church and think about the afterlife because you won't find any answers in this world.
There are no absolute guarantees that all NATO members will send their troops to fight if Russia were to invade Poland or Finland or Germany, but NATO is geared to fight and Russian invasion of any NATO member and NATO forces are far more powerful than Russian forces and the only way Russia could prevail in such a contest is people like you who want to surrender, just as the only Ukraine can fail in this war is people like you who want to surrender.
If we are going to discuss this, try to do it honestly, no matter how you are feeling. I never said winning would guarantee Ukraine's security; what I said is that Ukraine will not be able to join NATO unless it wins. Right now, you seem more interested in winning a debate with me than in discussing the situation in Ukraine.We are not in a church, man, and here is no place for believing. There is logic and common sense.
In a way of discussion you refuse your own points. First, you claimed that only a win can guarantee Ukraine's security. Now, you admit that it isn't so.
Ukraine's membership in NATO after the war's end? No one knows what this end means. I can assure you that at some NATO summit a clause will be passed that 'end' should mean a peace agreement with Russia. Which Russia won't ever sign under this circumstances.
Your reasonings don't make sense. All you have now is some personal attacks that is ridiculous.
My point about NATO is that the alliance will hardly ever agree on joining Ukraine in any foreseeable future. The reason is quite simple and pragmatic. It is more convenient to have a buffer zone between it and Russia, than a full member with full obligations to defend.If we are going to discuss this, try to do it honestly, no matter how you are feeling. I never said winning would guarantee Ukraine's security; what I said is that Ukraine will not be able to join NATO unless it wins. Right now, you seem more interested in winning a debate with me than in discussing the situation in Ukraine.
The fact remains, membership in NATO is the best guarantee of security Ukraine can get. In the real world, you try to make the best choice you have even if it is not a perfect choice.
I did not attack you; I attacked your position. Effectively, your position is for Ukraine to stop trying to win back any more of the country and to accept a partitioned state while Russia continues to attack and push Ukraine westward, and this appears to be because you are so angry NATO did not provide a timeline for membership in NATO that Zelensky wanted. You simply haven't presented a viable alternative to fighting to win.
The only question is what form of "partitioned state" of Ukraine the Russian Federation can tolerate. For example, I'm pretty sure, that they won't tolerate further discrimination of the Russians or further attempts of joining NATO.Yes, I am ready to accept a partitioned state. If you want an analogy (though in a much wider scale), it will be a post-War Europe, when a half of it remained under the Soviet rule. Full 'liberation' happened almost 50 years later.
The necessary strength of Ukrainian forces depends on how provocative you wanna be. For example, the Georgians, who don't try to attack Russian allies or Russian people, don't need much. But if you still want to kill or expell all the Russians (or de facto join NATO) - no amount of weapons (both conventional and nuclear) will be able to deter the Russians.In a military sense, Ukraine at first needs the densest air defence system in the world. Long-range artillery that can cover Crimea, the Black Sea and bordering Russian regions. It is the 21st century, not the fucking WWI with the trench warfare. But it is the kind of war the Putin regime wants Ukraine to be engaged in.
Actually, membership in NATO is the simplest way to commit collective suicide for them. The best guarantee of Ukrainian security is to be non-provocative, like post-war Georgia. Zelenskiy go to jail, the Ukrainians accept a new president from Russia, give equal rights for the Russians and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church, rewrite neutral status in their Constitution.The fact remains, membership in NATO is the best guarantee of security Ukraine can get. In the real world, you try to make the best choice you have even if it is not a perfect choice.
By the time this is over i doubt Nato will have a future, lets face it the war in Ukraine is a Nato war on Russia, it's just the Ukrainians who are dying for Nato, Ukraine probably won't have a coastline by the time Russia liberates Odessa, and any future Ukrainian state will have to be neutral if it wants to survive. i say Doug Macgregor for President, he talk more sense than that cabal of psychos in Washington led by that dangerous senile clown Biden.Actually, membership in NATO is the simplest way to commit collective suicide for them. The best guarantee of Ukrainian security is to be non-provocative, like post-war Georgia. Zelenskiy go to jail, the Ukrainians accept a new president from Russia, give equal rights for the Russians and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church, rewrite neutral status in their Constitution.
NATO doesn't need a buffer state between NATO states and Russia; in fact, NATO doesn't need Ukraine at all. There was no serious interest in arming Ukraine against Russia before last year's attack, and even after the invasion began, there was no serious interest in arming Ukraine until Ukraine drove the Russian army back toward the border from Kiev. You may find it hard to believe in anything or anyone, but watching that retreating Russian army made the western democracies believe Ukraine had the will and ability to defeat Russia, and that's what has kept Russia from steadily moving westward in Ukraine.My point about NATO is that the alliance will hardly ever agree on joining Ukraine in any foreseeable future. The reason is quite simple and pragmatic. It is more convenient to have a buffer zone between it and Russia, than a full member with full obligations to defend.
Yes, I am ready to accept a partitioned state. If you want an analogy (though in a much wider scale), it will be a post-War Europe, when a half of it remained under the Soviet rule. Full 'liberation' happened almost 50 years later.
For me, a 'win' in this war will be preserving the Ukrainian state in any meaningful form. Especially, if this state will show an ability of economic and social reforms.
In a military sense, Ukraine at first needs the densest air defence system in the world. Long-range artillery that can cover Crimea, the Black Sea and bordering Russian regions. It is the 21st century, not the fucking WWI with the trench warfare. But it is the kind of war the Putin regime wants Ukraine to be engaged in.
We can only hope.Oleksii Reznikov, Defence Minister of Ukraine, believes that by next summer, Ukraine will win the war and can be admitted to NATO in July 2024.
Source: Reznikov in an interview with CNN
Details: The minister said that he considers the NATO summit in July next year to be a possible moment for Ukraine to join the Alliance.
"Who knows, maybe it will be a very important day for Ukraine. It is just my forecast," Reznikov said.
He acknowledged that Ukraine will be able to join the Alliance only after the end of the war, because during the fighting "we have no options to have a unanimous vote."
When asked if he thought the war would be over by next summer, he quickly replied: "Yes. We will win this war. "
A bold statement, but the entre civilized world hopes he is right.
Of course many will depend on the US elections, because it is ridiculous to think about a 'victory' by then. Or at least, in that sense as you perceive it.NATO doesn't need a buffer state between NATO states and Russia; in fact, NATO doesn't need Ukraine at all. There was no serious interest in arming Ukraine against Russia before last year's attack, and even after the invasion began, there was no serious interest in arming Ukraine until Ukraine drove the Russian army back toward the border from Kiev. You may find it hard to believe in anything or anyone, but watching that retreating Russian army made the western democracies believe Ukraine had the will and ability to defeat Russia, and that's what has kept Russia from steadily moving westward in Ukraine.
The US provides the monster share, way over half, of the weapons Ukraine is fighting with, and under your plan, Ukraine's security would depend entirely on who wins the next US election or the election after that. Ukraine will never have any real security against Russia unless it becomes a NATO member.
No, even after Putin invaded no one believed Ukraine would be able to stand up to Russia until the Ukrainians drove the Russians back from Kiev toward the border, but I recall that even last year you wanted to abandon eastern Ukraine and Crimea to the Russians, arguing that there were too many pro Russians there for it to be governable by Ukraine. It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.Of course many will depend on the US elections, because it is ridiculous to think about a 'victory' by then. Or at least, in that sense as you perceive it.
Yes, the West was more interested in business as usual with Russia, than in arming Ukraine. And only Putin's full scale invasion that was perceived as a direct challenge changed this attitude.
And yes, no one wanted to be engaged with a lost cause at the beginning. The Western countries were more busy in evacuating their embassies. And something tells me that in a year you will be advocating giving this lost cause up.
Yes, I made it clear more than a year ago that taking back Kharkiv region and right-bank Kherson and stopping the Russians on the current frontline (though I expected them to gain far more Donbas territory last year) would be considered a 'win' by me.No, even after Putin invaded no one believed Ukraine would be able to stand up to Russia until the Ukrainians drove the Russians back from Kiev toward the border, but I recall that even last year you wanted to abandon eastern Ukraine and Crimea to the Russians, arguing that there were too many pro Russians there for it to be governable by Ukraine. It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
Russia will not tolerate it being a Nato member, where have you been? Nato is years past it's sell by date and the sooner it's put in the dustbin of history the better for World peace .NATO doesn't need a buffer state between NATO states and Russia; in fact, NATO doesn't need Ukraine at all. There was no serious interest in arming Ukraine against Russia before last year's attack, and even after the invasion began, there was no serious interest in arming Ukraine until Ukraine drove the Russian army back toward the border from Kiev. You may find it hard to believe in anything or anyone, but watching that retreating Russian army made the western democracies believe Ukraine had the will and ability to defeat Russia, and that's what has kept Russia from steadily moving westward in Ukraine.
The US provides the monster share, way over half, of the weapons Ukraine is fighting with, and under your plan, Ukraine's security would depend entirely on who wins the next US election or the election after that. Ukraine will never have any real security against Russia unless it becomes a NATO member.
