Two years ago it was pointed out Russia had no hope of winning in Ukraine because the US has the biggest and most advanced military and a lot of allies. The US GDP is 13 times that of Russia, and as NATO is getting more involved, the total US plus NATO GDP is something like 25 times the GDP of Russia as well as having a far greater population. That is about capability.
Concerning threat Ukraine is next to the Russian Federation with the closest parts of eastern Ukraine just 330 miles from Moscow. That is about a third of the distance the Soviet missiles in Cuba were from Washington. That distance is significant because it is currently estimated that faster newer US missiles would be able to reach Moscow in just 5 minutes which is not long enough for the population to get into the bomb shelters. I'm not saying it is going to happen, but the strategic significance was to use the threat to 'neutralize' the Russian Federation. The overall plan was to 'bleed Russia white', delegitimize the Putin government and break up the Russian Federation so it would 'never again be a threat to the Western world'. Basically it was a repeat of breaking up the USSR back in the late 1980s for which credit was given to Reagan's strong stance by many, possibly without or with justification.
Motivation The US is as usual in an odd situation. What goes on in Ukraine is of great concern to Russia, buy by reason of geography, is of limited interest to the US. The US public is in an odd situation of claiming that Russia is not threatened because NATO is only a defensive organization, and has only ever attacked Kosovo and Libya. The Russian Republic can not leave, whereas the US usually does. We left Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Joe Biden said Russia attacked the people of Ukraine. He gave no supporting evidence at all for his wild claims, but because that was the first most people heard of the war in Ukraine, but public believe it and it would take too much effort to investigate what actually happened, what is happening now, and certainly too much effort to change their minds.
Troops in eastern Ukraine make it not a proxy war. But yes, full support should’ve been provided to Ukraine from day 1 with massive expansions in military production devoted across the NATO front from day 1, along with the process to accept Ukraine into NATO starting on day 1 including a hard date set for that acceptance as soon as approval was given. Throw in some good posturing with military buildups up and down the NATO border with Russia and Russia would be begging us to come to the table.
What concerns me is that after the departure of Trump we are back into the old habit of starting wars, blaming them on someone else, and wasting money on wars. When we should be doing something about our own country, just my opinion of course, and our own balance of payments, and our own population and borders.
The chronology and the logic indicate the opposite. But I'm well aware that once someone has made up their mind, it is rare for them to change it.
Chronology: Kyiv bombardment of Donetsk had become a heavy bombardment after the 'help' sent from the US had reached the front lines in quantity on on Feb 19th 2022. After writing to the US President and Gen Sec of NATO, Russia moved forces in on Feb 24th 2022, as promised to protect Donetsk. If you look at a map even two years later, the Surovikin Line is still there protecting Donetsk. What's all this crap about Russia invading Ukraine? But with longer-ranged weapons being supplied to the UAF it will be necessary to move Russian defenses further West. And that is continuing. Launching remote piloted boats with big warheads from the coast next to Odessa will require taking even more land.
The Past I accept that it is often impossible to get completely convincing evidence about something in the past, however the Feb 24 2022 statement read by Joe Biden to the press can be shown to be deliberately misleading. That may seem to be a side track, but it is core to the claim that the Biden Administration has to be held guiltless because they claim that they did not have anything to do with starting the war. [President Biden Holds a Press Conference Feb 24th] "Sorry to keep you waiting The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity. ..." As an exercise in English Comprehension, saying 'has begun' implies that it just started. NATO was correct to say the war in Ukraine started in 2014. The Biden statement was wrong even by the fifth word of the statement. The problem is the US public heard it and can not now change their minds, it would involve changing too many other thoughts.
'The Rise and Fall of the US Empire' will state that the continual wars from 1950 onward played a key role in the fall of the US Empire. I'm not being alarmist, the US Empire is not like the Roman Empire was and we will not be over run by foreigners either. And an Empire is just an appendage, not something we must have, and often it costs more than it is worth. The optimum size for a country or country plus empire is a topic of it's own. I am not on the side of Russia or anyone else but just for the sake of the ordinary human beings on this planet we should resolve things in a civilized fashion. We often start wars on the basis that we are 'standing up for the little guy'. It would be an error to simply assume that is true every single time it is stated.
Who the hell said that? The initial expectation was that Russia would win in weeks and then deal with an insurgency. After that, it was like maybe Ukraine has a chance... It's Russia that has fallen below expectations.
There are bits of Biden's speech which were correct, "... He moved more than 175,000 troops, military equipment into positions along the Ukrainian border. He moved blood supplies into position and built a field hospital which tells you all you need to know about his intentions all along. ..." Ukraine had an army of 680,000 and Russia moved in about 175,000. I don't think winning was on the agenda at that time, it was more a case of showing earnest and defending Donetsk.
And up the ante some more, threaten the Russian fleet from the coast close to Odessa and force Russia to capture all that as well! I suspect that picture because a stealth boat would not have yellow stripes on it, I suspect. But Ukraine has launched some remote piloted boats with big explosive charges even if they don't look that spectacular.
Putin will continue the war against Ukraine until he dies or is removed from office by his military. Putin is in over his head and will never admit his mistake. The USA will continue the support of Ukraine until the USA goes bankrupt or there is no longer a Putin.
You are making a claim that Putin will continue the war. When Vladimir Putin warned the US and NATO against advancing forces into Ukraine, the US ambassador to Moscow phoned around and every one in the Kremlin he reached from the progressives to the 'knuckle-dragging' conservatives totally agreed with Pres. Putin. Moving NATO and US NATO weapons into Georgia and Ukraine was the 'red line' stated by Pres. Putin in his communications with US ambassador Burns. On Feb 1 2008 US ambassador Burns with the rank of a four-star general, and wrote the cable 'Nyet means nyet' as a very direct warning against moving NATO any closer, and that cable is readily available on the Internet.
Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). 1. (C) Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. End summary. MFA: NATO Enlargement "Potential Military Threat to Russia"
The UK wants to expand the war to include countries that ship weapons to Ukraine (Western and Central Ukraine). They are thinking that means just Russia, but of course it also means the UK and France.
I spent about 20 years living near that dolt, I saw him standing around once but I couldn't think of anything to say to him, he really is boring. Also dangerous.
