Zolensky has appealed directly to the Russian military. But the Russians are winning so less likely they surrender.
Yes, but for how long? If Russia can invade a sovereign nation, they can invade yours too, and you guys are way weaker than even the Ukraine. DD
The only reason for doing it now would be naked, otherwise purposeless, virtue-signalling. That they are posturing in this direction is embarrassing and counter-productive. They should be better than this.
Duh...he just wouldn't do war. So there would be no invasion, even if someone wanted to conquer his country. His country would say "No war." And boom, it's over.
Alexander Vindman on what the United States could have done differently America Could Have Done So Much More to Protect Ukraine The paths to deterrence were not taken. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/ukraine-russia-war-nato-biden-deterrence/622873/ excerpt: The seed of this conflict was planted many years ago, across multiple Republican and Democratic administrations. But the Biden administration and its successors will own the geopolitical consequences of this war. Undoubtedly, things could have been worse—one need only imagine a world where the former president was still in office. I acknowledge that the Biden administration reacted to the warning signs with consistently powerful statements about the U.S. commitment to the safety of U.S. citizens abroad, its resolve to defend NATO’s eastern flank, and Ukraine’s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination in the international system. The Biden administration also marshaled unity among U.S. allies, though it remains to be seen whether the promised sanctions and security measures will materialize. Nevertheless, U.S. leaders cannot absolve themselves of guilt by claiming they did all they could to prevent another invasion; they offered a necessary response, not a sufficient one. Like every administration since the end of the Cold War, Joe Biden’s fell victim to wishful thinking about the Kremlin’s ambitions in Ukraine and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s basic commitment to international norms. In doing so, the Biden administration continued the decades-long practice of allowing deterrence to erode. The paths to prevention were not taken. For instance, early in December, President Biden openly acknowledged that he would not send American troops to fight in Ukraine, thus removing any possibility of strategic ambiguity. The U.S. could have refused to elucidate its security commitments to Ukraine, much as it has done vis-à-vis Taiwan for decades. The implicit threat of U.S. and NATO intervention would have forced Putin to contend with the risks of further escalation. Instead, Biden granted Putin a free hand. The U.S. also refused to provide advanced weapon systems to Ukraine, such as Patriot anti-aircraft missiles or Harpoon anti-ship missiles, because it determined that Ukraine’s armed forces were not sophisticated enough to handle them. Although Ukraine would have struggled to realize the full potential of these systems, they could nonetheless have affected Russia’s calculus for military operations. And for those who might argue that Russia would have preempted the shipment of weaponry by invading, I would contend that if invasion was already the predicted outcome, what was there to lose? All the while, the Biden administration failed to pair diplomatic overtures with sufficiently powerful, credible military pressure, perhaps over fears of a bilateral conflict with Russia. These fears were misplaced. I can say from my significant experience dealing with the highest levels of Russia’s military leadership that it has no interest in a bilateral confrontation with the U.S. Russian leaders have zero desire for nuclear war, and they understand that they would inevitably lose in a conventional war. However, Russia excels at compelling the U.S. to self-deter. Besides military pressure, the U.S. also failed to consider graduated response options once Putin’s preferred course of action had been established. The U.S. could have imposed targeted sanctions on Russian leadership or introduced long-overdue anti-corruption legislation to signal the impending costs of reinvasion to the Kremlin. By choosing to view these options through an all-or-nothing lens, the U.S. unnecessarily constrained its response. Biden’s administration was reactive when it should have been proactive. Over and over, the president’s longtime senior advisers seem to have recommended narrow, low-risk policy options, and these backfired. more at the link
With all due respect to Col. Vindman...this is not realistic at all. Strategic ambiguity around the use of ground forces in Ukraine? Is he completely blind or indifferent to political realities? Provide advanced weapons that even he acknowledges the Ukrainians likely couldn't have used? Weapons that in a few days would belong to Russia? I am sympathetic to his personal feelings on the issue and like most Americans right now I wish there was more that could have been done to save Ukraine from this nightmare, but we have to operate in the real world.
Second such video like this to appear over the last 24 hours. The other one was a vehicle that moved to the side of the road to led a tank pass by and it still ran them over and killed the driver.
I took it that he was reciting a viral right wing online conspiracy theory because it felt recited but lacked intellectualism (shocking). So I’m really wondering what exactly that conspiracy’s directive is to people like my friend who I actually think of as more center right because he’s younger and tends to be more logical so it was kind of surprising to me. If I have to theorize motive I’d think it’s an attempt by Russia and/or China to cherry pick the 2nd most powerful NATO ally to try and cause a propagated fracture there. The issue here is the lengthy amount of time it takes for a “big lie” with a narrative to take hold and have any impact on American policy. It seems like a long term tactic without an articulate case to be made. Just wonder if I’m missing something or some real consequences that could come with a NATO fracture which I don’t see.
I can comment about Germany. In my opinion, the (in)actions of Germany have largely contributed to Ukraine being in the position it is in. It is shameful. Obviously, that shouldn't mean that the US should "take out" Germany. But Merkel's government has strengthened Putin to the point where he is now. Merkel's predecessor Schroeder is Putin's lap dog, working for him. Merkel signed Nord Stream. The CEO of Nord Stream, an East German like Merkel, worked for the "Stasi" ministry for 16 years. Merkel abruptly and suddenly exited nuclear energy in Germany, which of course played into Putin's hands, as it increased Germany's dependence on Russia's gas, and allowed KGB mobster Putin and his friends to fill their pockets. Germany has also not fulfilled its obligations to NATO. And when Ukraine asked Germany for help, Germany sent them 5,000 ****ing helmets. It's incredibly embarrassing. Germany has only been good at feeling morally superior to the US, because Trump, and so on. But the reality is that Germany doesn't even have a functioning army. If Putin wanted to invade Germany, it would be easy. Germany is constantly thinking it can lecture the world and virtue signal to everyone, but in reality, the Germany of today is an embarrassment. We are also the ones blocking kicking Russia out of SWIFT. If push were to come to shove, Germany would once again have to beg the US and UK to rescue it. Thats how bad we are. The biggest laughing stock is the German health minister. He seriously put out a tweet today, saying that Putin is selfish to start a war, while he is trying to fight Covid and save the climate. Almost the whole leadership of the social democratic party in Germany are almost closer to Putin than to the US in their mindset. Total losers. So yeah, I can understand why the world would be right to be mad at Germany. I know the Ukrainians are. And they are right.
That’s a guarantee he’s invading elsewhere next and they should join NATO ASAP. He’ll only attack at that point if he’s suicidal… which he might be at this point.
You literally posted propaganda straight out of Putin's mouth: The only people saying this are Putin and then his pro-Russia defenders: Flynn, Carlson, Gabbard, etc. Anyone else who's looked at a map would know that there's actual NATO countries on their borders already. Estonia is not even a 3 hour drive from St. Petersburg. That justification you used for invading Ukraine is literally Russian propaganda nonsense.
