Reply With QuoteControlled Opposition (11-19-2022), Phoenyx (11-19-2022)
Verified User
I wish/hope that were so.Originally Posted by Phoenyx
There are a few Republicans and independent minded folks as yourself that dont buy into jingoistic Russiaphobia
But Congressional leaders of both parties think the USA is "fighting for democracy" and such nonsense
Still at least some of us dont want to get dragged into the Ukraine Money Pit further
Controlled Opposition (11-19-2022), Phoenyx (11-19-2022)
Senior Member
1 - Scott Ritter and a bunch of others can believe whatever they wish.
2 - Russia is now losing the conventional war in Ukraine. That seems obvious to me.
https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...nt-november-18
Russia have already have 'lost' over 100,000 troops, killed or injured.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-uk...b6a96a79a89abf
120 combat aircraft/helicopters that they DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS/TIME TO REPLACE.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...ring-2022.html
Almost 1,400 tanks (destroyed or captured). Over 2,500(!) AFV/IFV/APC's destroyed or captured. And hundreds of artillery pieces and SPA's destroyed or captured.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html
These are unsustainable losses if this war continues for much longer.
Where Ukraine can just go shopping at NATO for almost anything they lose/want.
3 - America/NATO seems hell bent on providing Ukraine with almost ANYTHING they need to win.
4 - Russia is NO WHERE NEAR the military power they were 30 years ago. Yes, they have some advanced weapons systems. But they have not had the money to build many of them. Take the T-14 Armata tank? I have read several, respected sources call it the/one of the best tanks in the world. Russia initially planned to build 2,300 by 2020. They now have 100...maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
5 - NATO CLEARLY has a large advantage over Russia in advanced weapons systems. It is not even close.
6 - Russia throwing in 300,000 half-trained conscripts is no match for western, top-of-the-line weapons.
7 - Russian troops are CLEARLY, not remotely as motivated as Ukrainian ones. Discipline in the Russian military is not good. For instance, the Russian cruiser Moskva was sunk without firing a shot. The radar station was (apparently) not even manned at the time of the attack. There are clearly HUGE, fundamental problems with the structure of the Russian military.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature...ukraine-205338
8 - I am not saying Russia cannot win. But they ARE losing the conventional war, right now. Period. And I see NO weapons that they have in reserves that NATO cannot EASILY match...and then some.
If NATO is 'all in' in Ukraine (which they seem to be)?
Russia CANNOT win, imo.
Cuba was about America not wanting nukes on their doorstep.The American people as a whole have almost 0 reason for being in Ukraine to begin with. The only ones strongly benefitting from this is the military industrial complex. The U.S. had been perfectly ready to take out Cuba back during the Cuban missile crisis, despite Russia's involvement. Now Russia has its own Cuban missile crisis and I don't see them backing down just because the U.S. is there either.
This has NOTHING to do with nukes on Russia's doorstep.
This is about Russia paranoia about invasion from NATO.
You want to believe that Russia will do ANYTHING to stop NATO entering Ukraine.
I do not.
I think the average Russian is wiser than that.
Most of their lives have only known peace with the West.
It's primarily just the old farts who are the truly, paranoid ones.
Now the DPR, LPR and especially Crimea...they might be different matters.
What?I believe Biden's best course of action would be to stop supporting Ukraine militarily and strongly encourage them to end the war by conceding most if not all of the territory that Russia has taken. Ukraine had had an opportunity to only concede Crimea and the Donbass region near the start of the war, doubt that'll be possible now though.
You seriously expect Biden to tell Ukraine to just give up ALL of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia?!?
Now that they have Russia in retreat?
Why on EARTH would he do that?
Unless the Reps/remotely sane Libs in Congress, grow more brain cells and can stop the flow of arms to Ukraine?
I see only bad (other) options ahead.
Last edited by McRocket; 11-19-2022 at 06:28 PM.
Senior Member
You are assuming that most Russians feel that way.
I believe most Russians believe - as I do - that holding a referendum in the middle of an active, war zone is miles from legitimate.
Only when there has been peace for some time can a true referendum be held.
But even if I am wrong on that.
I think (though cannot prove) that most Russians don't give a shit about Kherson or Zaporizhzhia.
Outside of paranoid, old farts who remember the dark days of WW2/the Cold War.
I HIGHLY doubt that the average Russian under 50 is prepared to die to stop Ukraine from taking back those two Oblast's.
Verified User
Agreed. The issue is not what people believe, but what theory holds the most evidence. Due to Mr Ritter's expertise, I believe his theory more than others at present.1 - Scott Ritter and a bunch of others can believe whatever they wish.
As you know, Mr. Ritter believes the truth to be quite different. I think Ritter's best point was looking at Ukraine's goals vs. Russia's goals. Ukraine has stated that they plan to retake Donbass and Crimea. So far, they are 0 for 2. Last I heard, they had to contend with rolling blackouts as well:
Rolling blackouts continue in Ukraine as government works to repair, stabilize grid before winter | PBS
Russia's goals have been holding Crimea and Donbass, forming a land bridge to Crimea, and demilitarizing Ukraine to some extent. Currently, they are 3/4.
How many troops has Ukraine lost, dead or injured, and what percentage of the population does that loss represent? What percentage of their equipment has been lost? I don't know the numbers for Ukraine, but based on what Mr. Ritter said in his interview, that cost would appear to be pretty steep. Nor is Mr. Ritter the only journalist who believes so. Patrick Lawrence, in an article dated November 12, had this to say:
**
All signs of what was to come. Now to signs of what is to come.
One, there is Surovikin’s concern about protecting the combat readiness of the troops now regrouped on the Dnieper’s east bank. Two, there is the vast call-up of Russian reserves announced last summer: I read some 80,000 of the 300,000 reservists to be mustered out are already in place in Ukraine. Three, there is Moscow’s claim—respect it or not, it is a “fact on the ground”—that Kherson region is Russian territory now and Kherson is the provincial capital.
I add one and one and one and get this: It is very likely Surovikin, who is putting his own plans and people in place like some new-broom corporate CEO, has taken one step back prior to taking two forward. I don’t think anyone too far from the Russian high command can say when, but the signs just enumerated indicate that a major new offensive is in the offing at some point in the new year.
**
Source:
Patrick Lawrence: Why Are the Russians Retreating in Ukraine? | Scheerpost
Well, one thing is for sure- we'll be finding out soon enough.
Verified User
Actually, Zelensky was suggesting the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons to counter Russia mere days before Putin started his military operation in Ukraine. Not only that, but Putin had taken note of Zelensky's stance and responded to it shortly before his operation as well. An article on the subject was published a day before his operation, here:Cuba was about America not wanting nukes on their doorstep.
This has NOTHING to do with nukes on Russia's doorstep.
President Zelensky Suggests Ukraine May Pursue Nuclear Weapons To Counter Russia, Putin Responds | The Daily Wire
NATO's betrayal of their promises to Russia of not expanding NATO beyond Germany is fairly well known at this point:
The US ‘Betrayed’ Russia, but It Is Not ‘News That’s Fit to Print’ | The Nation
As I've mentioned previously, I believe that Russia might be persuaded to give up its claim of the city of Kherson at this point, seeing as they have let it go for the time being. I don't see Russia giving up anything else right now.What?
You seriously expect Biden to tell Ukraine to just give up ALL of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia?!?
Now that they have Russia in retreat?
Why on EARTH would he do that?
Honestly, so do I. I'm just saying what I think would be best, not what I think will happen in the forseeable future.
Verified User
As mentioned before, I don't mind the idea of holding a new referendum after a ceasefire. Let's see how things play out.
Senior Member
As I said...I do not think for one second that Putin will use nukes unless NATO attacks Russia proper/Crimea..
You believe otherwise - so be it.
Most Russians do NOT fear the West, imo.NATO's betrayal of their promises to Russia of not expanding NATO beyond Germany is fairly well known at this point:
Only those who lived for most of their lives during the Cold War.
Again, you believe otherwise...so be it.
I don't think you are giving ordinary Russians enough credit...especially those under 50.
What difference does it make if Putin can be convinced or not?As I've mentioned previously, I believe that Russia might be persuaded to give up its claim of the city of Kherson at this point, seeing as they have let it go for the time being. I don't see Russia giving up anything else right now.
Russia has NO CHOICE.
They are losing territory, every day.
Russia is getting weaker by the day.
And Ukraine is getting stronger as more and more NATO weapons pour in.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-c...-with-ukraine/
And even if NATO runs low - their economies combined, dwarf Russia's.
They can EASILY out build them.
What on Earth - other than the comments of people you like (which mean little to me - I am ONLY interested in hard facts, in this regard) - are you basing your belief that Russia can stop Ukraine/NATO on?
Verified User
Considering the stakes involved, I think it best to be cautious, but I wasn't actually referring to what Putin would do if NATO officially put boots on the ground in Ukraine. I was referring to the fact that Putin had legitimate concerns about Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons prior to his decision to start his military operation in Ukraine.As I said...I do not think for one second that Putin will use nukes unless NATO attacks Russia proper/Crimea..Actually, Zelensky was suggesting the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons to counter Russia mere days before Putin started his military operation in Ukraine. Not only that, but Putin had taken note of Zelensky's stance and responded to it shortly before his operation as well. An article on the subject was published a day before his operation, here:
President Zelensky Suggests Ukraine May Pursue Nuclear Weapons To Counter Russia, Putin Responds | The Daily Wire
You believe otherwise - so be it.
I've seen no polls of what those under 50 in Russia think in regards to the west. I'm just pointing out the evidence that NATO failed to keep its word in regards to expansion and that many in Russia view that as a betrayal and that it strongly suggests that NATO and the U.S. can't be trusted to keep their word and that the only thing they respect is a display of military power. Also, pretty sure that most people in high offices in Russia are over 50.Most Russians do NOT fear the West, imo.
Only those who lived for most of their lives during the Cold War.
Again, you believe otherwise...so be it.
I don't think you are giving ordinary Russians enough credit...especially those under 50.
You seem to be assuming that NATO nations will pour everything they have into this war. I don't hold that assumption. As to facts, it's a fact that even some in the mainstream media believe Ukraine may not win on the battlefield if NATO doesn't send Ukraine even more than they've been sending it so far. An article from the New York Post that came out about a week ago said that if Biden doesn't send Ukraine aircraft, Ukraine won't win:What difference does it make if Putin can be convinced or not?
Russia has NO CHOICE.
They are losing territory, every day.
Russia is getting weaker by the day.
And Ukraine is getting stronger as more and more NATO weapons pour in.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-c...-with-ukraine/
And even if NATO runs low - their economies combined, dwarf Russia's.
They can EASILY out build them.
What on Earth - other than the comments of people you like (which mean little to me - I am ONLY interested in hard facts, in this regard) - are you basing your belief that Russia can stop Ukraine/NATO on?
Ukraine needs planes, Mr. President, or Putin will win | New York Post
It even acknowledges the possibility that this could trigger a nuclear war, but simply considers it to be bluster, even as it literally provides evidence that it's not (click on the link in the excerpt below for details):
**
Putin’s nuclear bluster should not deter our sending (or facilitating the transfer of) fighter planes to Zelensky’s forces.
**
Finally, the European part of NATO is faltering this winter. That in turn may bring more political changes, which could affect NATO's supplying of military aid to Ukraine. An article on that:
A Winter of Discontent: The Coming Cold Season May Trigger a Spring of Political Change in European Elections | europeanconservative.com
An interesting excerpt from the article:
**
Not all European countries have been caught flat-footed. The most prominent example has been the central European nation of Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has pursued a deviation from the European Union’s collective policy of isolating Russia over its invasion of Ukraine by continuing the importation of Russian energy, earning the ire of Washington and Brussels. Today, Hungary will be dealing with domestic cutbacks and regulations in power consumption, but it now stands better prepared with higher energy reserves while the rest of Europe faces the specter of rationing. Orbán chose national interest and realpolitik over the collective will of Europe concerning Russian sanctions.
The contrast of reactions between Budapest and Brussels to the coming crises of this winter have been noticed by those who pay close attention to international affairs. When the weather turns cold and the snow falls, the reality between a home in Hungary and a home elsewhere in Europe, let’s say Germany, will be evident to all. While the European Union’s leaders put all effort into presenting a united condemnation of Russian aggression to be exercised at any cost, Hungary’s leadership considered the potential danger to Europe’s economy from leveling sanctions in the midst of a recession. The EU’s policy has been one of ideology while Hungary’s has been one based on national interest.
The concept of national self-interest has been demonized by the Brussels elite as an idea responsible for Europe’s history of wars and chaos. Peace and virtue, they seem to suggest, can only be achieved if nation states abandon their national interests. Furthermore, in times of crisis, a collective demonstration of force must be made, even when that demonstration is harmful to a nation’s self-interest. Hungary has decided to ditch Brussels-style virtue-signaling and face the ensuing accusations of being selfish in exchange for being able to provide peace, and relative economic and political stability for its own people. The citizens of the rest of Europe are starting to take notice.
**
DeadHead
Somebody needs to explain why the pathological liar and notorious war criminal Vlad Putin should be trusted to negotiate in good faith.
Predictions of Ukraine's imminent demise and defeat have been greatly exaggerated.
Putin Boasts of Being Able to Take Kiev in Two Weeks
https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/?amp=true
Verified User
Your claim is that Putin is a pathological liar. Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Thank you for that link. There has been some debate as to whether or not Russia was really trying to take Kiev early in the war. The above article, while published in 2014, suggests he was intending to do just that. So yes, I can certainly agree with you that predictions of Ukraine's imminent demise and defeat have been greatly exagerated by some. Conversely, however, fairly early in the war, predictions of -Russia's- imminent demise and defeat have been greatly exaggerated as well. Some in the west were predicting Russia's defeat from as far back as the end of March. Here's a quick sampling I've found over the months after a fairly quick internet search.
In late March:
Is the West Deceiving Itself About Russia’s ‘defeat’ in Ukraine? | American Enterprise Institute
Then in May:
Has Russia been beaten? This military expert says that moment is coming soon | Salon
In August:
Ukraine could defeat Russia by New Year’s Eve, a former top US general said | businessinsider.mx
And in October:
As War Hits the Homefront, Russia’s Defeat Inches Closer | foreignpolicy.com
Classical Liberal
Are you suggesting that it’s possible Russian commanders purposely put their soldiers in a position to be slaughtered? And their tanks to be be destroyed?
DeadHead
There is no question Putin wanted to take Ukraine.
Not only based on the amount of forces he committed to the Kyiv offensive, but based on strategic and historic factors garden variety Americans cannot understand.
There is no point waging Total war on Ukraine if Kyiv is not the objective from Putin's point of view. Kyiv has enormous psychological, historical, and mythological significance in the Russian mind. Kyiv is ground zero for East Slavic civilization, and Putin is nothing if not messianic and historically minded. Kyiv is a corner stone of imperial Russian nationalism, it is the lynchpin of Holy Rus. America is an immigrant nation which cannot be expected to fully comprehend this kind of nationalist conciousness and national mythology.
Verified User
No, I'm saying there's no hard evidence that Russia's plan was to take Kiev/Kyiv. That being said, the more I've studied the issue, the more I've come to believe that Russia did initially plan to take Kiev, but found that doing so was a lot harder than they anticipated, and so pulled back. I just watched a video on Youtube that I found educational on the subject:Are you suggesting that it’s possible Russian commanders purposely put their soldiers in a position to be slaughtered? And their tanks to be be destroyed?
Verified User
There is, but I have come to the conclusion that it is more likely that Russia did indeed initially try to take Kyiv, only to find it was more difficult than they'd originally thought, and so pulled back. As I mentioned to anonymoose in my last post here, I found a video that I found educational on the subject just now and linked to it as well.
Verified User
well we dont let the 'average American' under 50 make war policy either
But if you look at the Russian mindset, many younger Russians still have great fears of another Great Patriotic war
I dont know either just how far that goes, and with NATO weapons decimating Russian troops
They are either sick of the war and dont care how it ends or listen to Putin and hang in ..
But these are average Russians, what matters is Putin and the oligarchs idea on the war.
Im sure if there were some true negotiations, Russia would take part.
I dont think Zelensky would -he has Biden wrapped around his finger
Posting Rules
Bookmarks