Kherson offensive?

You're the only one who believes that.
You lost.

 

Ukraine Conflict Updates

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 6

Click here to read the full report.

Key Takeaways

• The Kremlin directly responded to Russian rumors of a second wave of mobilization in an apparent effort to manage growing societal concern and recentralize information about the war with the Russian government and its authorized outlets, but there are several indicators that Russia still intends to conduct a second wave of mobilization.
• Igor Girkin, a former Russian militant commander and prominent critical voice in the Russian milblogger information space, returned to Telegram following a nearly two-month stint in Ukraine and used his return to offer a vitriolic first-hand account of the situation on the frontlines.
• Ukrainian forces likely made recent gains in northeastern Kharkiv Oblast, and Russian forces conducted limited attacks and defended against Ukrainian counteroffensive actions.
• Russian forces continued to conduct ground attacks near Bakhmut and Avdiivka.
• Russian sources claimed that Russian forces made marginal territorial advances near Bakhmut, but Russian forces have not succeeded in their efforts to surround the city.
• Russian authorities are very likely conducting an information operation to convince Russians of the security and integrity of the Kerch Strait Bridge following repairs to the bridge span.
• Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova denied rumors on December 5 that Russia is preparing to withdraw from or transfer control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) to another actor.
• Russian occupation authorities continued to strengthen security measures in occupied territories. . . .

Ukrainian forces have likely made recent gains in northeastern Kharkiv Oblast as part of ongoing counteroffensive operations. The Ukrainian General Staff indicated on December 5 that Russian forces shelled Ukrainian positions near Tavylzankha, Bohdanivske, and Lyman Pershyi (all about 50km northwest of Svatove and 15km south of the international border), indicating that Ukrainian troops have likely made limited advances in this area.[14] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) also inadvertently indicated that Ukrainian troops have taken control of Kyslivka (25km northwest of Svatove) by claiming that Russian strikes targeted a Ukrainian command post in Kyslivka on December 5.[15] Russian sources claimed that Ukrainian troops continued to attack Russian positions northwest of Svatove between December 5 and 6.[16] . . .

Russian authorities are very likely conducting an information operation to convince Russians of the security and integrity of the Kerch Strait Bridge following repairs to the bridge span. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin announced on December 5 that Russian authorities completed repairs to all four road spans of the Kerch Strait Bridge following an attack on the bridge in September.[47] Russian media outlets and milbloggers circulated footage of Russian President Vladimir Putin himself driving across the bridge, likely an effort to convince Russians that the bridge is stable and secure enough for Putin and therefore the rest of the populace.[48] Such an effort is likely part of a broader information operation to suppress panic over the prospect of a potential Ukrainian counteroffensive in southern Ukraine that could eventually threaten Russian positions in Crimea and the few logistics lines connecting Crimea and the rest of occupied southern Ukraine. . . .

 

You and what troll army?

 

Why troll army. Compared to others he makes deep analysis of the events rather than just doing copy paste from some known and unknown sources.

 

Well this is interesting. My only point is that @Jack Hays is wrong that the Monroe Doctrine was any sort of mutual defense pact. It's such a stupid point that I can barely believe someone is defending it. The only reason he's trapped making such a dumb argument is because in this thread, facts don't matter, which is why YOU are now coming in to defend his argument/

OK I'm listening. Explain to me how the Monroe doctrine is a mutual defense pact since you've decided to weigh in on the topic?

 

If only you could define what it is I've lost....

 

This is way off subject and has been continuing ad infinitum. It's kind of destroying the focus of this thread.

 

I thought so as well but @Jack Hays has been unwavering in his incorrect view of history so continues to post over and over.

 

You continue to obsess over this. Why?

 

Why do you say it's my obsession?

 

We were discussing you, not me.

 

Not that it is relevant to this thread and I will turn it back to the thread topic in a second, the Monroe Doctrine of United States was aforeign policy position that opposed European intervention in the Western Hemisphere.

Because of that it held and still holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas, i.e., North, Central or South America by foreign powers the United States has differences with, i.e., China, Russia, Iran, North Korea most certainly would be considered potentially hostile act against the United States and could cause military response. This doctrine is central to American foreign policy since it came about in the 19th century and remains.

The US has followed it militarily in Haiti and Grenada and it still has issues with the government in Cuba and would most certainly respond militarily again if Cuba affimred itself with nuclear missiles again or allowed Russian troops on its soil.

For Lil Mike to be confused about that is absurd.

Now back to the thread Russia invaded Ukraine as part of the exercise of hegemony.

The sphere of influence Putin believes is Russia's absolute right of control dates back to the 18th century and principle to this belief that if Ukraine is not controlled it provides a valuable pathway to attack and destroy Moscow.

The Warsaw Pact after WW2 was not just a military alliance but an economic one of controlled economies by the Soviet Union to support that military network.

Likewise the Marshall plan that rebuilt Western Europe after WW2 was also inter-related to the creation of NATO and later the EEC.

Military and economic blocs are one and the same in terms of hegemony. The fact is when an economy collapses so does its ability to control other nations (be a colonialist).

Ukraine was invaded because Putin wants back the former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet Socialistic Republics that are now independent nations as part of that buffer zone and bloc to surround Moscow and central Russia.

Ukraine was becoming a successful economic powerhouse threatening the very weak and failed economic system of Russia next door fueling Russian anxiety over its failed economy under Putin.

Putin launched the war in Ukraine hoping to show how tough he was and distract from his inner problems. Ukraine was the reminder of Putin's failures and it was oh too close for everyone in Russia to see.

 

Since I never said the Monroe doctrine was any kind of pact, you're dead in the water from the start.

 

You posted a false claim.
You lost.

 

It can end as soon as you apologize for your false claim.

 

Let me know when you agree to let false claims about your posts go unchallenged.

 

Volodymyr Zelensky Is TIME's 2022 Person of the Year

 

Well let's put it this way. I'm not obsessed.

 

I'm not confused about that. I just disagree that it was a mutual defense pact that would trigger an automatic defense of any Western Hemisphere nation by the US. It helps if are familiar with the topic before barging in.

 

You are indeed confused. There was never a claim that it was a mutual defense pact. That is exclusively your fantasy.

 

See the quotes of your below that I helpfully provided

Since you made the false claim:



...it's on you to apologize. I was willing to just let it go if you stopped posting but since your demand is for an apology for a false claim that is my demand to. Otherwise this won't end. I can't exactly let you get away with historical inaccuracy after that can I?

 

What is a collective defense for $500?

 

He didn't say it was a pact. Seems to me you're attempting a straw man argument here. That it was a form of mutual defense seems well established, however:

The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the United States.[1] The doctrine was central to American foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.[2]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

So, not a pact, but still a policy that would potentially see the U.S. militarily oppose European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere.

 

Was it a "collective defense of newly independent foreign colonies against their foreign masters?"

No it was not.

I'm not trying to split hairs. The definition you provided from Wikipedia I agree with. That's not the discussion however.

 

Collective defense is a concept, embodied, for example, in the Monroe Doctrine. The concept is in the plain language of the doctrine, and the only one who mentioned a pact was you.