You keep misunderstanding who is playing what role in your moronic historical analogies. Currently Ukraine is playing the role of the North Vietnamese and Mujahedeen repelling foreign invaders. Both were successful in defeating two of the most powerful militaries the world has ever known because people are highly motivated to oppose subjugation under a foreign power.
I don't know if Russia can sustain this war economically or logistically for another full year. The ruble is not "better than ever." We've pretty much committed to Ukranian victory and unless there's some undeniable loss in Ukrainian forces, there's no need for Zelinsky to sue for peace, nor is there a push for it. No one trusts Russia to fully respect Ukraine's borders and everyone is vested for a definite conclusion. I'll probably soften my views if we ever start putting boots in Russia, but that doesn't seem to be on the horizon, if ever. Putin would probably freak out more if he's about to lose Crimea. He's reacted more to that than whatever moves NATO border members have made...
You might believe that is a mission goal but personally, I find you can't benchmark progress with a vague statement such as that. I view Russia's aggression as a tactic to disrupt global economics, not the rebuilding of the glorious USSR nonsense or full invasion of western Europe. Putin also has a low thresh-hold for human rights, so he can continuously churn out 50k annual Russian deaths for the next 10 years. Ukraine can't. And as I stated before, as long as Russia has BRICS, it can continue to participate in global trade (oh those glorious sanctions are working so well) and maintain a decent enough economy to limp along. Americans have fallen in this arrogant trap believing the rest of the world needs their grand service economy where everything is handed to you on a silver platter. People really do not need 3000' sqft houses, brand new cars, food delivered to them every night, ect ... This is a replica of the end of the Roman empire. This is Putins view and he wishes to assist in destroying it by having the US engage in yet another costly war. You might keep telling yourself its different this time, but its not. Korea was different from Vietnam (and I actually view the Korean war as a success), Vietnam was different from Afghanistan and Afghanistan will be different from Ukraine. The problem is America puts its interests first and these countries eventually get tired of being exploited.
Exept Putin has actually invaded a country that was part of the USSR and has said himself he wants to rebuild the USSR. He's threatened the Baltic states, Moldova and other countries that were part of the USSR. That he's willing to commit troops should show that he is serious. Whether Putin can tolerate 50K deaths a year doesn't mean that the rest of Russia will. There's already reports that Russia is having problem meeting troop requirements and the ones they are fielding are low quality, low morale and low equipped. Sure BRICS country can keep on trading with him. War is expensive and the Ruble isn't very valuable. It's still questionable how long that can be sustained. So what Putin is a modern day Chinggis Khan and the US is a modern day Samarkand that Chinggis will put to the sword to show us the error of our ways? Yes we can agree there are long term problems with the US. Our support of Ukraine is barely going to make a difference to those long term problems. Yes Korea was different from Vietnam and from Afghanistan. Ukraine is different from both of those. Your argument is that this war is really just like Vietnam and Afghanistan when for the US it is very different.
I'm sure he either knows this and is just gaslighting or he's someone who isn't intelligent enough to waste your time on. My bet is on gaslighting. He knows people like you and me are naturally anti-war so if he can tug on our natural dispositions a bit, maybe he can cause people to fracture from the current administration's policies, and politically disband. You can tell him water is wet all day long, and he's going to keep dragging you along hoping to tug on you anti-war sentiment long enough to make you crack. You know that supporting Ukraine is straightforward, the right thing to do, and in our interests. You won't get someone like him arguing in bad faith to suddenly acknowledge what obviously makes sense to any objective person.
Explain your logic and reasoning here. How did Russia disrupt global economics? When and what did they do to accomplish that?
I have no idea if he believes it or if he’s just gaslighting. I’m just having a debate with him that is only as valuable as I have free time and inclination to do it. If he thinks he’s being some big disruptor who is getting people to challenge the Admin’s strategy that’s him. I’ll judge the admin in what I see them doing and not because Door Dash and support of Ukraine is bringing the downfall of the US.
Clearly he wouldn't understand, or else he's simply trolling. His posts are outright nonsense, in my opinion. Reply to him, and he simply pumps out more. Again, either he's that ignorant and too dense to understand facts handed to him "on a platter," or he's a troll. While I admire those who are attempting to reply seriously to the fellow, I'm not going to continue wasting my time. They can "have at it" and power to them.
Germany? Natural gas exports? Grain exports? Fertilizer exports? Oil exports? Did you really think banking sanctions really worked?
Russia could cut off its oil and gas exports without invading Ukraine. Russia could severely impact Ukraine's Grain and Fertilizer exports by surgically targeting those areas. A full invasion of Ukraine wasn't at all necessary. The idea that Russia invaded Ukraine to disrupt global economies (for what purpose?) through limiting exports you have mentioned doesn't make sense when it can be done much easier than a full invasion. The reasons for the invasion (we know most of it is bs) have been explicitly spoken by Putin publicly: Ukraine isn't a county - it belongs to Russia, stop NATO's expansion, stop genocide against ethnic Russians, stop Ukraine from obtaining nuclear weapons, stop the Nazis government of Ukraine. His desire for a return to the great Russian empire has not been explicitly mentioned as a reason but is well known through his public speeches over the years. Let's not go off track to sanctions (btw it's much more than banking) which are not related to the reasons for Russia's aggression.
In January of 2022 Putin was actually in a much stronger position geopolitically. He had all the economic resources he could play, he still had his military at full strength and most people didn't realize the inherent flaws that were so evidence in the Russian military. NATO wasn't united. He could've used economic and diplomatic pressure to compel concessions from the Ukraine and other countries. He could pressed for more autonmy in the Donbas. For more access to water for Crimea and several other things. He could've done far more to the global economy without sanctions on Russia. Instead he chose to lauch an invasion that largely failed in it's first month, it united NATO, brought a lot of sanctions down on him, has crippled the Russia's economy and is bleeding Russia's military. Nearly all of the territorial gains from the first few weeks of the invasion have been lost and they are in danger of losing territory that was under titular Russian control in January of 2022. Many are focusing on Ukraine, US and NATO arguing that Ukraine can't suppot this and that the US and NATO are now in a forever war. The problem with just looking at that way is that you have to also consider where Russia is now. They aren't nearly as strong as they were a year ago. The Russian military has been exposed as being an inept and corrupt fighting force. Many in Russian among even those who support the invasion are openly critical of the leadership of the war. Morale is very low among the Russian people. It is high among the Ukrainians. As Napolean said in war three quarters of victory comes down to morale. Also as generals going back to Hannibal found out fighting in someone else's land also depends on support from home. A lesson we've made the mistake a few times. If the Russian populace doesn't want to support the war Putin's ability to wage it will be critically diminished, also his rule will be too. So yes things aren't easy for the Ukrainians but they are very difficult for the Russians.
Also in a situation like this there is a binary. Loss of support for Ukraine will benefit Russia. I get that many who are critical of US and NATO support for Ukraine don't want to support Putin but that is the net result.
you're quoting Napoleon positively in a post about war with Russia; I'm surprised you failed to mention Biden's masterful leadership too.
Biden's has been pretty good. He took leadership in getting allies to work together, send military equipment, impose sanctions, got funding and resources moved to help Ukraine from the US. He did all of that even though the relationships with our allies were at a low point going into the situation. It may not match your chicken-hawk preferences. But it did take actual leadership and diplomacy to get it done.
Good point you’re right Napoleon should not be quoted regarding Russia. As far as Bidens leadership yes it’s been masterful. Ukraine still stands and is making inroads against Russian territory thet was held before the February 2022. Ukraine is getting tanks from several countries and NATO remains United. All without US or other NATO Combat troops committed.
Spoiler tell me Holy (Holy roller) Holy roller (Are you standing) are you standing (Like a soldier?) Like a soldier? (Well) are you standing for everything you talk about? Holy roller Spoiler
