cf.net in conjunction with the UN and State Department presents...the first annual talent show for peace: - RocketsJudoka takes on Putin - Zelensky does stand-up against Another Brother and Belarus' best comedian - Borscht/chili cookoff - Ukraine and Russia send their hottest women for the PG-13 thread contest. - Ukraine and Russia send their top propagandists to make the best Rockets memes...without any knowledge of the category. Winner gets Donbass Loser...admits he's wrong!
Yes, except Russian logistics seem to be a complete cluster****...even for an invasion of a country literally next door. Also, your primary argument was that Russians don't care about losses in manpower...not logistics, so which is it? Or did you just want to get a jab in at Biden (although I agree with your sentiment that the progressive branch of the Dems are giant p*****s about Russia and don't understand anything about the conflict).
do I have to choose? going back to my original premise, and parallels to both WWs, Russians (leadership, whether Tsas, Stalinists, or the current crop of Fascists) don't care about peasant losses. and logistics will tell. I should hope that "why Ukraine is different from Syria/Afghanistan" would be apparent from a modest familiarity with the local geography. but logistics success is not determined by geography alone- there's infrastructure to consider, and here the Russians are vulnerable. they won't be for long, and this is why the west must seize the moment. Gary Trudeau had a wonderful strip about why geography is the most important subject: one can't understand history, politics, economics...or war, without an understanding of geography. it was 40 years ago, but has stuck with me.
Yes I brought it up earlier that the Russians have shortened their supply lines and are fighting on territory that is friendly to them. That is why I think we've entered more of a stalemate. That said what do think Biden should be doing to seize the moment? He's already sending billions in military and humanitarian aid there that many conservatives are complaining about. Should he be sending US and NATO troops? All I see is criticism with no substantive suggestions or understanding the tight rope that we're walking with Ukraine.
there's a crucial piece of info I don't have, so I can't make an arm chair general's recommendation. what is the condition of the Ukrainian army? I don't know, you don't know, and I suspect, given his mental state, Biden doesn't know. the above notwithstanding, I do know the UKA cannot withstand a war of attrition with Russia. So Biden, the west, NATO, must ask themselves, what's the strategic goal of supporting Ukraine? Staving off Russian revanchism? expansion of NATO? destruction of the Russia ability to wage war beyond its borders? Ukrainian independence? I've heard no articulation of the aims of our support, beyond #StandWithUkrains ::What Would You Say You Do Here DOT Gif::
I understand geography lol...but to equate invading an independent modern Ukraine with the Red or Tsarist army fighting German troops who posed an existential threat to the regime in the what was the rural backwaters of Eastern Europe...is a massive stretch of logic. As I said before, which you neglected to reply to, Russia would have to fight a massive counter insurgency (hence my Afghanistan comparison) if they advance beyond the pro-Russian or Russian speaking areas. And as you even admit, Russian logistics are currently a mess. Putin wont see domestic backlash if he avoids sending middle class Russians to war. And a real invasion of Ukraine means a maasive COIN operation...and you can only send so many Wagner mercenaries, Syrian Baathists, and African troops before you need to reach into the demographic that matters for regime stability to fight a insurgency. No different than their/our invasion of Afghanistan and our invasion of Iraq. The USSR is recent enough, and the ousting of the installed puppy Yanokuvitch is recent enough that the people who dont want to be a part of Russia no what it means if they lose. To apply a common Taliban quote "the (occupier) can stay here for a century, but we will be here forever". Its the same reason half of Texas is claiming secession and realistically could secede if enough of the state wanted it. Its very hard to hold territory when a well-armed group of people don't want you there in significant numbers.
So you're just criticizing based on speculation and ideological bias without any basis to even a provide a suggestion. First off I haven't been saying "we need to seize the opportunity" for a situation that my knowledge is as limited as yours. I honestly don't know what opportunity there is to be seized. It seems like we're at a stalemate position. If you're talking longterm strategic goals. Yes staving off Russian revanchism is a strategic goal. Strengthening NATO is certainly a goal and one that has been achieved. This is a war of aggression. RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE. They did so voluntarily. Preventing that is a good idea. And before people what about Iraq. I opposed Iraq invading Iraq and on similar grounds.
He gets points in at Biden which is what matters. Biden could come out with a multiple point conorehensive plan tomorrow that would look no different from any plan a GOP President would put out, and he'd say Biden has dementia and needs to ve impeached. Meanwhile half of the GOP sucks Putin's dick and prominent GOP senators are meeting with him on the 4th of July. Aside from 9/11, Presidents can only lose on foreign policy. Clinton got criticized for not intervening in Rwanda but then got beef from those same people on the left for bombing the Serbian army for massacring Bosnians. Clinton slammed Bush Sr for focusing on the Gulf War and not the economy. A helicopter crashed trying to rescuse embassy hostages, and Carter was deemed ineffective...whereas Reagan somehow got a pass for selling weapons to Iran to secure their release. The most socially and economically progressive President since FDR didnt run for re-election because of a war he didn't start. The GOP lost seats in 2006 because of Iraq (a war everyone supported initially but now claims they didnt). Obama's nuclear deal and diplomatic relations possibly cost Clinton the election.
Biden has dementia. this is a fact. it's also separate from the issue we're discussing. The folks running his administration have not articulated what we're hoping to accomplish in Ukraine. unlike @SamFisher I am 1000% behind supporting Ukraine. I'd like to know what our strategic goals are.
I don' think you understand the term "fact". I just spelled out some of them. But if you don't know what strategic goals we have in Ukraine why are you 1000% behind supporting them?
So you're just for supporting a military conflict with one of the combatants we are arming but you don't have any sense of the strategic goals. No wonder you were such a big supporter of the invasion of IRaq.
A fact according to whom? A few memes? The Blaze? You guys remind me of a little kid. Trump was infirm by 2020...so naturally you just parrot criticisms of Trump towards Biden. Trump was corrupt and had his kids in high up cabinet meetings...which means every Hunter scandal was an issue. Trump moved the overton window to the right and would be a radical in the 2000s...ergo Biden, a centerist Dem with decades in the Senate, is somehow also a radical socialist. Trump had no foreign policy experience and gutted as many bureaucrats with expertise as he could to put in sycophants...so that means Biden (former VP, decades of experience in the Senate) clearly knows nothing about the rest of the world. You also didnt respond to any of my points about Russia having to fight a counter insurgency and instead are basing your analysis on how the Russian army fought in WW2. Logistics are king...until you have to admit Russian logistics suck. Geography matters, until I point out that I understand geography. You say we have no goals...because you ignore any time someone explains them to you. I get you're pandering for likes from the other conservative posters on the board who are only here for ***** and giggles...but at least answer the points @rocketsjudoka and I are bringing up.
Remember when I criticized the Iraq war in the DeSantis thread and someone said "Bush didnt ask for 9/11" thinking I was talking about Afghanistan. Whenever I talk to my family they now claim they opposed Iraq...except I remember arguing during the surge (because the Iraq war started my interest in both the Middle East and politics) that Iraq was un-winnable. I also remember how everyone opposing the war was labeled a traitor and a veteran hater.
Proxy wars are fought very differently than wars of conquest. People talk about how Russia expected Kiev to fall quick. Kiev did fall quick. The United States and Europe are propping it up. How many trillions of dollars is it going to take before the rest of the world realize its just not worth it. Ask the Taliban
I don't remember any of this. There were many people who were very critical of the Iraq invasion. I did not support it but I wasn't heavily critical of it either. I thought it was a bad idea. Afghanistan war was much more favored. At least in Iraq we got rid of Saddam.
