Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Look at the map of Czarist Russia in 1914. Putin has publicly said that is Russia's rightful boundaries. That encompasses at least a dozen now independent countries, including Poland and Finland.
Not a lot of examples in history of megalomaniac autocrats who swallow a dozen countries and say "yeah, I'm good now." He needs to be stopped because he isn't stopping himself. He's a kook.
Luckily it looks like he's breaking his teeth on Ukraine. And we are helping Ukraine break them.
Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Look at the map of Czarist Russia in 1914. Putin has publicly said that is Russia's rightful boundaries. That encompasses at least a dozen now independent countries, including Poland and Finland.
Not a lot of examples in history of megalomaniac autocrats who swallow a dozen countries and say "yeah, I'm good now." He needs to be stopped because he isn't stopping himself. He's a kook.
Luckily it looks like he's breaking his teeth on Ukraine. And we are helping Ukraine break them.
Putin's a bad guy and we're doing the right thing this year. Absolutely no argument there.
Sometimes I just get confused if his goal is the former USSR, Czarist Russia, the whole world, or what.
Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Look at the map of Czarist Russia in 1914. Putin has publicly said that is Russia's rightful boundaries. That encompasses at least a dozen now independent countries, including Poland and Finland.
Not a lot of examples in history of megalomaniac autocrats who swallow a dozen countries and say "yeah, I'm good now." He needs to be stopped because he isn't stopping himself. He's a kook.
Luckily it looks like he's breaking his teeth on Ukraine. And we are helping Ukraine break them.
Putin's a bad guy and we're doing the right thing this year. Absolutely no argument there.
Sometimes I just get confused if his goal is the former USSR, Czarist Russia, the whole world, or what.
Not sure if this is implying those of us sounding the alarm are being hyperbolic and inconsistent. But I don't think so. To say it again.
1. At a minimum the USSR. He's clearly pissed about what happened with the dissolution.
2. His insane "map" presentation at the start of the war and his blood and soil speech map to Czarist Russia. Look at the map in 1914. Russia as a "great power" should "own" that land. A lot of that land is now in the hands of current or soon to be NATO members.
3. I don't think a guy who gobbled up a dozen countries to recreate Czarist Russia and got away with it would stop. Half his speeches are devoted to defending traditional values and God against the decadence of the West. No real precedent for religious warriors stopping on their own. God knows no geographic boundaries. Also no real precedent for megalomaniac rulers choosing to stop their expansion. See Alexander the Great, Caesar (both Julius and Augustus), Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. Putin has delusions of grandeur. History is full of rulers like this. And it's never good.
Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Look at the map of Czarist Russia in 1914. Putin has publicly said that is Russia's rightful boundaries. That encompasses at least a dozen now independent countries, including Poland and Finland.
Not a lot of examples in history of megalomaniac autocrats who swallow a dozen countries and say "yeah, I'm good now." He needs to be stopped because he isn't stopping himself. He's a kook.
Luckily it looks like he's breaking his teeth on Ukraine. And we are helping Ukraine break them.
Putin's a bad guy and we're doing the right thing this year. Absolutely no argument there.
Sometimes I just get confused if his goal is the former USSR, Czarist Russia, the whole world, or what.
Not sure if this is implying those of us sounding the alarm are being hyperbolic and inconsistent. But I don't think so. To say it again.
1. At a minimum the USSR. He's clearly pissed about what happened with the dissolution.
2. His insane "map" presentation at the start of the war and his blood and soil speech map to Czarist Russia. Look at the map in 1914. Russia as a "great power" should "own" that land. A lot of that land is now in the hands of current or soon to be NATO members.
3. I don't think a guy who gobbled up a dozen countries to recreate Czarist Russia and got away with it would stop. Half his speeches are devoted to defending traditional values and God against the decadence of the West. No real precedent for religious warriors stopping on their own. God knows no geographic boundaries. Also no real precedent for megalomaniac rulers choosing to stop their expansion. See Alexander the Great, Caesar (both Julius and Augustus), Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. Putin has delusions of grandeur. History is full of rulers like this. And it's never good.
Sebastabear, I was all prepared to tell you that you seem to be so sure about this, simply based on your gut feelings, plus the 1938 "Policy of Appeasement" historical example...
And then you come in with examples galore: Well done.
Still, I suspect history is rife with examples of empire-building wannabes that stopped after only taking one or two countries (or areas). Maybe that's all they really wanted, or maybe that was their first priority, but they thought they couldn't get away with anything else at that time.
Okay, I'm sure Mr. I-did-my-homework is going to ask me for some examples now...
Geez, I always hated homework. I dunno, how about North Vietnam? Or maybe China really wants Taiwan, but after that, they would be willing to continue their empire through economic "influence", rather than military invasion? Or how about (shudder), the United States, which was -- more or less -- sated when it reached its Manifest Destiny?
Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Look at the map of Czarist Russia in 1914. Putin has publicly said that is Russia's rightful boundaries. That encompasses at least a dozen now independent countries, including Poland and Finland.
Not a lot of examples in history of megalomaniac autocrats who swallow a dozen countries and say "yeah, I'm good now." He needs to be stopped because he isn't stopping himself. He's a kook.
Luckily it looks like he's breaking his teeth on Ukraine. And we are helping Ukraine break them.
Putin's a bad guy and we're doing the right thing this year. Absolutely no argument there.
Sometimes I just get confused if his goal is the former USSR, Czarist Russia, the whole world, or what.
Not sure if this is implying those of us sounding the alarm are being hyperbolic and inconsistent. But I don't think so. To say it again.
1. At a minimum the USSR. He's clearly pissed about what happened with the dissolution.
2. His insane "map" presentation at the start of the war and his blood and soil speech map to Czarist Russia. Look at the map in 1914. Russia as a "great power" should "own" that land. A lot of that land is now in the hands of current or soon to be NATO members.
3. I don't think a guy who gobbled up a dozen countries to recreate Czarist Russia and got away with it would stop. Half his speeches are devoted to defending traditional values and God against the decadence of the West. No real precedent for religious warriors stopping on their own. God knows no geographic boundaries. Also no real precedent for megalomaniac rulers choosing to stop their expansion. See Alexander the Great, Caesar (both Julius and Augustus), Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. Putin has delusions of grandeur. History is full of rulers like this. And it's never good.
Sebastabear, I was all prepared to tell you that you seem to be so sure about this, simply based on your gut feelings, plus the 1938 "Policy of Appeasement" historical example...
And then you come in with examples galore: Well done.
Still, I suspect history is rife with examples of empire-building wannabes that stopped after only taking one or two countries (or areas). Maybe that's all they really wanted, or maybe that was their first priority, but they thought they couldn't get away with anything else at that time.
Okay, I'm sure Mr. I-did-my-homework is going to ask me for some examples now...
Geez, I always hated homework. I dunno, how about North Vietnam? Or maybe China really wants Taiwan, but after that, they would be willing to continue their empire through economic "influence", rather than military invasion? Or how about (shudder), the United States, which was -- more or less -- sated when it reached its Manifest Destiny?
Good stuff. Would much rather debate history than the pros and cons of unisex bathrooms.
So on that note, I don't think your examples really work.
- North Korea didn't win that war so of course they didn't go on to invade more countries. They didn't even get the first one. Plus I'm not sure efforts to reunify a single country that was sundered 5 years earlier by outside powers really counts as Alexander the Great type empire expansion
- Ditto on China invading Taiwan. With the added bonus of course that it hasn't even happened yet and probably never will. China is actually an interesting case study all by itself. Over 2,000 years it really has never engaged in empire building through conquering neighbors. Read some fascinating papers on why that's the case, but regardless we can hardly point to this as an example of a megalomaniac conquering a bunch of neighbors and then voluntarily stopping. It's actually kind of the opposite of that.
- The U.S.? Uh, maybe? I mean we did invade the native Americans and took their land as we expanded to the coast. And Mexico obviously had some claims in the West that we fought over. But we bought the South from Napoleon and this was not exactly a case of neighboring kingdoms being conquered. Most important difference of course is that I'm talking pretty explicitly above about an individual ruler who gets delusions of grandeur and decides he personally needs to conquer the world. That's Alexander. And the Great Kahn. And Napoleon . . . And Putin. We don't really have someone like that. America wanted to expand from coast to coast but it wasn't a single dude and it happened over many lifetimes.
Comes back to Putin being a unique and specific type of threat. We've seen his kind before throughout history. He's not going to stop unless we (and by "we" I mean the Ukrainians using a good chunk of our money) stop him.
Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Look at the map of Czarist Russia in 1914. Putin has publicly said that is Russia's rightful boundaries. That encompasses at least a dozen now independent countries, including Poland and Finland.
Not a lot of examples in history of megalomaniac autocrats who swallow a dozen countries and say "yeah, I'm good now." He needs to be stopped because he isn't stopping himself. He's a kook.
Luckily it looks like he's breaking his teeth on Ukraine. And we are helping Ukraine break them.
Putin's a bad guy and we're doing the right thing this year. Absolutely no argument there.
Sometimes I just get confused if his goal is the former USSR, Czarist Russia, the whole world, or what.
Not sure if this is implying those of us sounding the alarm are being hyperbolic and inconsistent. But I don't think so. To say it again.
1. At a minimum the USSR. He's clearly pissed about what happened with the dissolution.
2. His insane "map" presentation at the start of the war and his blood and soil speech map to Czarist Russia. Look at the map in 1914. Russia as a "great power" should "own" that land. A lot of that land is now in the hands of current or soon to be NATO members.
3. I don't think a guy who gobbled up a dozen countries to recreate Czarist Russia and got away with it would stop. Half his speeches are devoted to defending traditional values and God against the decadence of the West. No real precedent for religious warriors stopping on their own. God knows no geographic boundaries. Also no real precedent for megalomaniac rulers choosing to stop their expansion. See Alexander the Great, Caesar (both Julius and Augustus), Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. Putin has delusions of grandeur. History is full of rulers like this. And it's never good.
Sebastabear, I was all prepared to tell you that you seem to be so sure about this, simply based on your gut feelings, plus the 1938 "Policy of Appeasement" historical example...
And then you come in with examples galore: Well done.
Still, I suspect history is rife with examples of empire-building wannabes that stopped after only taking one or two countries (or areas). Maybe that's all they really wanted, or maybe that was their first priority, but they thought they couldn't get away with anything else at that time.
Okay, I'm sure Mr. I-did-my-homework is going to ask me for some examples now...
Geez, I always hated homework. I dunno, how about North Vietnam? Or maybe China really wants Taiwan, but after that, they would be willing to continue their empire through economic "influence", rather than military invasion? Or how about (shudder), the United States, which was -- more or less -- sated when it reached its Manifest Destiny?
Good stuff. Would much rather debate history than the pros and cons of unisex bathrooms.
So on that note, I don't think your examples really work.
- North Korea didn't win that war so of course they didn't go on to invade more countries. They didn't even get the first one. Plus I'm not sure efforts to reunify a single country that was sundered 5 years earlier by outside powers really counts as Alexander the Great type empire expansion
- Ditto on China invading Taiwan. With the added bonus of course that it hasn't even happened yet and probably never will. China is actually an interesting case study all by itself. Over 2,000 years it really has never engaged in empire building through conquering neighbors. Read some fascinating papers on why that's the case, but regardless we can hardly point to this as an example of a megalomaniac conquering a bunch of neighbors and then voluntarily stopping. It's actually kind of the opposite of that.
- The U.S.? Uh, maybe? I mean we did invade the native Americans and took their land as we expanded to the coast. And Mexico obviously had some claims in the West that we fought over. But we bought the South from Napoleon and this was not exactly a case of neighboring kingdoms being conquered. Most important difference of course is that I'm talking pretty explicitly above about an individual ruler who gets delusions of grandeur and decides he personally needs to conquer the world. That's Alexander. And the Great Kahn. And Napoleon . . . And Putin. We don't really have someone like that. America wanted to expand from coast to coast but it wasn't a single dude and it happened over many lifetimes.
Comes back to Putin being a unique and specific type of threat. We've seen his kind before throughout history. He's not going to stop unless we (and by "we" I mean the Ukrainians using a good chunk of our money) stop him.
There is also strategic logic behind Putin expanding his borders. It seems counter-intuitive but if Russia wants to defends its borders more easily, it needs to expand outward. The core of Russia has no defensive value, its just a wide open plain. But if Russia is able to expand their borders they can get to easily defendable bodies of water and mountains, where there are only a few easy invasion pathways. This would effectively reduce the amount of border on open plains Russia needs to defend from approximately 3,000 miles to about 600. This happens to roughly correspond to the old borders of the USSR/Warsaw pact,
Of course with Finland joining NATO, Russia has a new issue which is defending the supply lines to the Kola peninsula where they house their Arctic fleet, several bomber wings, and a significant percentage of their nuclear missile facilities.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
Not really, there is one railroad and one road which run parallel with each other (approximately 20-30 miles apart) that connect the Kola peninsula to greater Russia. All NATO (or Finland) would need to do is send a small group of specialists through the heavily forested area (which is perfect cover for this kind of operation) and sabotage the road and railroad. If Russia wants to defend this transportation line, its a little under 400 miles from where the corridor splits in greater Russia to Murmansk. That is a long corridor to defend.
It could be defended, but it would take a large number of resources to do so, resources which are no longer on the frontline.
Also, hopefully it never comes this. I enjoy thinking strategically, but I don't actually want a greater war to break out (or the current invasion to continue). That would just be a horrifying disaster, even worse than the food, energy, and manufacturing crisis we are headed towards in the latter part of this year.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
Curious- do you ever go back and look at your old predictions? Because you have a terrible track record. How quickly did you say Russia would defeat Ukraine? Do you remember when you said the weather would dry out in April and Russia's tank divisions would resume their march on Ukraine?
Don''t get me wrong, I love a hot take, but yours are simultaneously confident/absolutist and hysterically inaccurate in hindsight. Perhaps you should just get out of the prediction game?
They do still tend to align extremely well with Putin Khylo's propaganda so you have that going for you.
Global conquest? He's getting his a$$ shot off in Donbas. There is no global conquest threat
And you think this is just happening on its own? Aid from Western nations has nothing to do with it?
No, the Ukranians, West and Russian incompetence all contributed but now the war has narrowed and is in a new phase
Okay. I think it might be a little premature to say the war has narrowed permanently, just as it was premature before the invasion to say Putin had no interest in taking Kyiv.
If this remains the stalemate, then sure, we don't need to keep pouring money in.
Indeed. People keep wanting to ignore the past even if it's only a few months old. It's the same analysis that had people even on this thread proclaiming Putin would "never" do a bunch of stuff that he then turned around and immediately did. Look at what Putin does. Listen to his words. There is no way his philosophy would make him stop at Ukraine. At an absolute minimum he wants the USSR back and some of those countries are now in NATO.
If he's stopping it's because we are stopping him. And we are choosing to stop him with our money, not our blood. Seems like the right call.
So, not definitely "world conquest"? Just the former USSR at an "absolute minimum" and maybe the whole world?
Look at the map of Czarist Russia in 1914. Putin has publicly said that is Russia's rightful boundaries. That encompasses at least a dozen now independent countries, including Poland and Finland.
Not a lot of examples in history of megalomaniac autocrats who swallow a dozen countries and say "yeah, I'm good now." He needs to be stopped because he isn't stopping himself. He's a kook.
Luckily it looks like he's breaking his teeth on Ukraine. And we are helping Ukraine break them.
Putin's a bad guy and we're doing the right thing this year. Absolutely no argument there.
Sometimes I just get confused if his goal is the former USSR, Czarist Russia, the whole world, or what.
Not sure if this is implying those of us sounding the alarm are being hyperbolic and inconsistent. But I don't think so. To say it again.
1. At a minimum the USSR. He's clearly pissed about what happened with the dissolution.
2. His insane "map" presentation at the start of the war and his blood and soil speech map to Czarist Russia. Look at the map in 1914. Russia as a "great power" should "own" that land. A lot of that land is now in the hands of current or soon to be NATO members.
3. I don't think a guy who gobbled up a dozen countries to recreate Czarist Russia and got away with it would stop. Half his speeches are devoted to defending traditional values and God against the decadence of the West. No real precedent for religious warriors stopping on their own. God knows no geographic boundaries. Also no real precedent for megalomaniac rulers choosing to stop their expansion. See Alexander the Great, Caesar (both Julius and Augustus), Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. Putin has delusions of grandeur. History is full of rulers like this. And it's never good.
Russia/Putin has no claims over many regions that were encompassed in the Russian Empire pre-WW1 borders. They have for instance no claims whatsoever over Finland. They were very happy with the situation with Finland being neutral before last year, and have had a stable, mutually beneficial relationship with them for decades.
Finland managed its post-war situation with the Soviets very well, staying independent and not being engulfed behind the Iron Curtain, despite having been, like Ukraine, a full part of the Axis, fighting the Soviets side by side with nazi Germany, even adopting nazi doctrine, as reflected by their WW2 armed forces markings:
Finnish air force Me-109G, 1944
The notion that we have to stop Putin in Ukraine because he is going to invade the rest of EE to reconstitute the USSR sphere is without foundation, it is a rehash of the 1960s Vietnam domino theory. Russia is going to end up taking over the Russian regions of Ukraine, about a quarter to a third of that country, and leave the rest, central and Western Ukraine, as a buffer country. That's an outcome that rational geopolitics analysts like Mearsheimer have predicted back in 2014.
Had the Zelensky government been more pragmatic, conceded Crimea (which did not want to stay in Ukraine), given the Donbas cultural autonomy and stayed out of NATO, they would have been left with their 2015 borders, and Ukraine would still be today the largest fully European country. As it is, barring a change of course, the war will continue and Ukraine will continue to lose ground and cede territory.
Even Biden has acknowledged that Russia would push back hard against a NATO expansion to its borders all the way back in 1997:
Back then however Russia was in complete shambles both militarily and economically, being run by Boris Yeltsin, who was put in place by neoliberals in order to defang Russia and pillage its massive resources:
Besides Ukraine, the only other situation where Russia will intervene militarily against its western neighbors is if their local Russian population were harmed (which was the case in Ukraine, with over 10,000 Russian-speaking civilians being killed by Ukrainian military in the Donbass from 2014 to 2021). That situation applies mainly to the Baltic states, who have a large Russian minority. So far the Baltic states have maintained a sharp anti-Russian language policy, but have stopped well short of violently repressing or killing their Russian minorities. As well Russia will move against Lithuania (pop. 2.7M) if it tried to impose a blockade on Kaliningrad.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
I think I missed your response to all the questions about your predictions and declarations on election night? Back to clarify?
The last time Russia tried to invade Finland went super well. Let's see them try that again when Finland has NATO backing.
Finland's fleet of Gustavs (Messerschmidt Me109G, pictured above) registered 600+ wins to 27 losses vs the Soviet air force, which had a lot of wooden Polikarpovs and early Yaks. Not quite the same balance of power today, where even non-nuclear escalation heavily favors the Russians.
What contributed to the stable post-war relationships between the USSR and Finland was the fact that the Finns haven't historically had harmonious relationship with their western neighbor, Scandinavian heavyweight Sweden, which occupied Finland for almost a millennium, until the Russian Empire took it over in the early 19th century. The Finns have had a long history with Sweden, but that memory seems to have faded today.
Lol Cal88 thinks Putin is trying to protect ethnic Russians outside Russia. He doesn't care about his own people, why would he care about Russians living in Ukraine
Just a remarkable ability to swallow what Putin is selling.
I would also note that Russianis a ****hole petro state with nukes. It's Texas with worse weather. No one is looking to attack Russia. Putin has run the country into the ground and there is no reason anyone would want to take anything from them, except perhaps China should it choose to take Russia's oil. China hasn't been expansionary so there is little reason to think that will change. Russia is basically a Middle East country without the religion and monarchy. Things are only going to get worse for them as the world de carbonizes.
But Cal88 will continue to post here about mother Russia and pretend like they are making rational strategic decisions and that they care about human rights even while Putin commits numerous atrocities and war crimes.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
Curious- do you ever go back and look at your old predictions? Because you have a terrible track record. How quickly did you say Russia would defeat Ukraine? Do you remember when you said the weather would dry out in April and Russia's tank divisions would resume their march on Ukraine?
Don''t get me wrong, I love a hot take, but yours are simultaneously confident/absolutist and hysterically inaccurate in hindsight. Perhaps you should just get out of the prediction game?
They do still tend to align extremely well with Putin Khylo's propaganda so you have that going for you.
I stand by those predictions, and they are being confirmed today. Russia is winning on the ground, they are slowly grinding down Ukrainian army in an attrition war where their huge edge in artillery is making a clear difference.
Kissinger's recent plea for a pragmatic deal is a tacit acknowledgement of the situation on the ground, the conflict has been one-sided since early April, when Russia has refocused on the Donbass and has been systematically breaching the defensive lines that Ukraine has built over its 8-year military campaign in the region.
There are about 15,000 Ukrainian troops that are being encircled in the Severdonetsk-Lysychansk "cauldron", one of the main Ukrainian defensive anchors in the region. The last anchor is the Kramatorsk-Soviansk line, beyond that Ukraine has no formal defensive lines set up. They are currently starting to build up a defensive cordon around Dnipro, in anticipation of Russian army progress deep into south-central Ukraine.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
I think I missed your response to all the questions about your predictions and declarations on election night? Back to clarify?
In the words of one of our former greats, one at a time, blungld!
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
Curious- do you ever go back and look at your old predictions? Because you have a terrible track record. How quickly did you say Russia would defeat Ukraine? Do you remember when you said the weather would dry out in April and Russia's tank divisions would resume their march on Ukraine?
Don''t get me wrong, I love a hot take, but yours are simultaneously confident/absolutist and hysterically inaccurate in hindsight. Perhaps you should just get out of the prediction game?
They do still tend to align extremely well with Putin Khylo's propaganda so you have that going for you.
I stand by those predictions, and they are being confirmed today. Russia is winning on the ground, they are slowly grinding down Ukrainian army in an attrition war where their huge edge in artillery is making a clear difference.
Kissinger's recent plea for a pragmatic deal is a tacit acknowledgement of the situation on the ground, the conflict has been one-sided since early April, when Russia has refocused on the Donbass and has been systematically breaching the defensive lines that Ukraine has built over its 8-year military campaign in the region.
There are about 15,000 Ukrainian troops that are being encircled in the Severdonetsk-Lysychansk "cauldron", one of the main Ukrainian defensive anchors in the region. The last anchor is the Kramatorsk-Soviansk line, beyond that Ukraine has no formal defensive lines set up. They are currently starting to build up a defensive cordon around Dnipro, in anticipation of Russian army progress deep into south-central Ukraine.
You stand by predictions that have been proven laughably wrong? Newsflash, Russia didn't win the war in days or weeks and their tanks didn't dominate in April. You probably still stand by your prediction that COVID will be gone in the US in July 2020 just like it disappeared from Europe. Yea, we all remember that prediction.
How many troops do you think Russia has lost? Do you think they promoted the Moskva to submarine status or did they have an accidental explosion on board? I wonder how far your assimilation of propaganda has gone. Do you think Navalny faked his own poisoning?
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
I think I missed your response to all the questions about your predictions and declarations on election night? Back to clarify?
In the words of one of our former greats, one at a time, blungld!
How much alcohol did you have to buy after losing your election day bets?
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
I think I missed your response to all the questions about your predictions and declarations on election night? Back to clarify?
In the words of one of our former greats, one at a time, blungld!
How much alcohol did you have to buy after losing your election day bets?
Does the OP mind if we hijack his/her/ thread to discuss how the Democrats rigged and stole the 2020 election?
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
Curious- do you ever go back and look at your old predictions? Because you have a terrible track record. How quickly did you say Russia would defeat Ukraine? Do you remember when you said the weather would dry out in April and Russia's tank divisions would resume their march on Ukraine?
Don''t get me wrong, I love a hot take, but yours are simultaneously confident/absolutist and hysterically inaccurate in hindsight. Perhaps you should just get out of the prediction game?
They do still tend to align extremely well with Putin Khylo's propaganda so you have that going for you.
I stand by those predictions, and they are being confirmed today. Russia is winning on the ground, they are slowly grinding down Ukrainian army in an attrition war where their huge edge in artillery is making a clear difference.
Kissinger's recent plea for a pragmatic deal is a tacit acknowledgement of the situation on the ground, the conflict has been one-sided since early April, when Russia has refocused on the Donbass and has been systematically breaching the defensive lines that Ukraine has built over its 8-year military campaign in the region.
There are about 15,000 Ukrainian troops that are being encircled in the Severdonetsk-Lysychansk "cauldron", one of the main Ukrainian defensive anchors in the region. The last anchor is the Kramatorsk-Soviansk line, beyond that Ukraine has no formal defensive lines set up. They are currently starting to build up a defensive cordon around Dnipro, in anticipation of Russian army progress deep into south-central Ukraine.
You stand by predictions that have been proven laughably wrong? Newsflash, Russia didn't win the war in days or weeks and their tanks didn't dominate in April. You probably still stand by your prediction that COVID will be gone in the US in July 2020 just like it disappeared from Europe. Yea, we all remember that prediction.
How many troops do you think Russia has lost? Do you think they promoted the Moskva to submarine status or did they have an accidental explosion on board? I wonder how far your assimilation of propaganda has gone. Do you think Navalny faked his own poisoning?
The number of Russian casualties falls somewhere between their own published stats and those from Ukraine and NATO-affiliated think tanks (I would put much of the MSM in that category). However Russia has significantly limited its early losses since around mid-April, when they consolidated their main focus on the Donbass front while holding the line in the southern front near Nikolayev. The loss ratio since then has been heavily slanted in Russia's favor, in a battle of attrition where Russia controls the "ligne of scrimage" and has far greater military resources.
Quote:
President Volodymyr Zelensky said during his speech in Davos that Russian troops in the Donbas currently deployed 20 times more military equipment than Ukraine has there. "Imagine how strong our warriors are, what a nation," he said, adding that Ukraine needs more long-range equipment to avoid the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
Zelensky, who is always prone to a bit of hyperbole, might be exaggerating the hardware differential a bit here, but he and his PR warriors (Arestovich etc) are now frantically trying to manage domestic expectations after skilfully having fed the narrative that they were winning the war. But the fact is, Russia has a big edge and is grinding down the main body of the Ukrainian armed forces in the pivotal Donbass front.
To use an analogy compatible with the focus of this board, the Ukraine war is like a 1980s Nebraska-Kansas or Nebraska-Missouri game where the underdog held his ground a bit early in the game, with the Huskers having uncharacteristically gone with the passing game in the first half resulting in a couple of interceptions. They are now back to their bread and butter wishbone attack, systematically grinding down the Kansas front 7, which is starting to tire out and suffer injuries early in the third quarter. That's where we are right now.
Back in April there was a belief that Ukraine could be saved with western Wunderwaffe, or wonder weapons, much like the Germans thought that they could turn the WW2 tide with their technologically advanced Me262s and other wonder weapons. The Javelin anti-tank system was literally beatified:
It proved to be largely ineffective, barely making a dent (literally so on Russian armor) as illustrated by the testimony of "Wali" a well-known Canadian sniper who signed up with the Ukrainian army and tried to hunt Russian tanks with the Javelin:
(Wali's wingman describes their attempt at using the Javelin at the 6:40 mark)
Basically the range of Russian tanks is much longer than the Javelin. As well, when the operators did manage to get close enough without being detected, their tanks have been able to sustain Javelin hits.
So the Ukrainians have asked for "smart" western artillery systems like the M-777 and the French Cesar system, which can track and respond in real time with pinpoint accuracy to enemy artillery. These have already been deployed on the Donbass and other fronts, but they have not made much of a difference due to their insufficient numbers (see Zelensky statement above). As well they can be countered by the mobile longer-range Russian MLRSs like the TOS system. So now the Ukrainian military is now requesting similar MLRS weapons systems, which once again are unlikely to make a pivotal difference due to the scale of the Russian inventory.
This whole war is very unfortunate, and could have been entirely avoided had Zelensky and his backers agreed to acknowledge Crimea being Russian, and had he applied the Minsk II agreement which provided for the cultural autonomy of the Donbass oblasts, and kept Ukraine relatively neutral, along the model that has worked very well for Finland since WW2.
Instead Zelensky was egged on to take on Russia with a blank check from the US taxpayer along with promises of wonderweapons and NATO might. Now he's looking at a truncated, landlocked Ukraine, having already lost Kherson and the whole land bridge from Donetsk, a quarter of the country, with the further prospect of losing Odessa, Karkhov and even Dnipro later this year, not to mention up to 100,000 casualties and his country getting "wrecked", as predicted by Mearsheimer. A true Ukrainian patriot who has the best interest of his people at heart would have behaved more rationally and taken the above offer.
Of course hundreds of millions of people around the world are also collateral damage to this war, which has aggravated global inflation and is putting pressure on the world food market. The responsible course of action would have been to avoid this crisis. unfortunately there has been a political vacuum in Europe after Merkel's retirement and in the US with the Biden administration, which isn't run by professional diplomats and analysts of the caliber of a Kissinger or Mearsheimer, driven instead by internal politics and ideological grandstanding.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
I think I missed your response to all the questions about your predictions and declarations on election night? Back to clarify?
In the words of one of our former greats, one at a time, blungld!
How much alcohol did you have to buy after losing your election day bets?
Does the OP mind if we hijack his/her/ thread to discuss how the Democrats rigged and stole the 2020 election?
It's quite amusing to think you care about thread hijacking and the feelings of the OPs.
This whole war is very unfortunate, and could have been entirely avoided had Zelensky and his backers agreed
Once again, a friendly reminder that it was RUSSIA who invaded (despite assurances from the likes of you that they wouldn't) and that Zelensky only asked for NATO assistance because of RUSSIAN aggression into his territory.
Pinning the fault for this war on Ukraine is ludicrous.
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
Curious- do you ever go back and look at your old predictions? Because you have a terrible track record. How quickly did you say Russia would defeat Ukraine? Do you remember when you said the weather would dry out in April and Russia's tank divisions would resume their march on Ukraine?
Don''t get me wrong, I love a hot take, but yours are simultaneously confident/absolutist and hysterically inaccurate in hindsight. Perhaps you should just get out of the prediction game?
They do still tend to align extremely well with Putin Khylo's propaganda so you have that going for you.
I stand by those predictions, and they are being confirmed today. Russia is winning on the ground, they are slowly grinding down Ukrainian army in an attrition war where their huge edge in artillery is making a clear difference.
Kissinger's recent plea for a pragmatic deal is a tacit acknowledgement of the situation on the ground, the conflict has been one-sided since early April, when Russia has refocused on the Donbass and has been systematically breaching the defensive lines that Ukraine has built over its 8-year military campaign in the region.
There are about 15,000 Ukrainian troops that are being encircled in the Severdonetsk-Lysychansk "cauldron", one of the main Ukrainian defensive anchors in the region. The last anchor is the Kramatorsk-Soviansk line, beyond that Ukraine has no formal defensive lines set up. They are currently starting to build up a defensive cordon around Dnipro, in anticipation of Russian army progress deep into south-central Ukraine.
You stand by predictions that have been proven laughably wrong? Newsflash, Russia didn't win the war in days or weeks and their tanks didn't dominate in April. You probably still stand by your prediction that COVID will be gone in the US in July 2020 just like it disappeared from Europe. Yea, we all remember that prediction.
How many troops do you think Russia has lost? Do you think they promoted the Moskva to submarine status or did they have an accidental explosion on board? I wonder how far your assimilation of propaganda has gone. Do you think Navalny faked his own poisoning?
This whole war is very unfortunate, and could have been entirely avoided had Zelensky and his backers agreed to acknowledge Crimea being Russian, and had he applied the Minsk II agreement which provided for the cultural autonomy of the Donbass oblasts, and kept Ukraine relatively neutral, along the model that has worked very well for Finland since WW2.
Instead Zelensky was egged on to take on Russia with a blank check from the US taxpayer along with promises of wonderweapons and NATO might. Now he's looking at a truncated, landlocked Ukraine, having already lost Kherson and the whole land bridge from Donetsk, a quarter of the country, with the further prospect of losing Odessa, Karkhov and even Dnipro later this year, not to mention up to 100,000 casualties and his country getting "wrecked", as predicted by Mearsheimer. A true Ukrainian patriot who has the best interest of his people at heart would have behaved more rationally and taken the above offer.
Of course hundreds of millions of people around the world are also collateral damage to this war, which has aggravated global inflation and is putting pressure on the world food market. The responsible course of action would have been to avoid this crisis. unfortunately there has been a political vacuum in Europe after Merkel's retirement and in the US with the Biden administration, which isn't run by professional diplomats and analysts of the caliber of a Kissinger or Mearsheimer, driven instead by internal politics and ideological grandstanding.
Excuse me, but this is laughably ridiculous, and I will not let you rewrite history. I expect a certain tilt in your posts, but this is beyond the pale.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine, they were not provoked, nor motivated by anything other than their own desire for more territory. This is not Ukraine's nor the West's fault, this is Russia's fault. Russia does not get to steal Ukraine's land (which is exactly what happened with Crimea). Russia does not care about the culture of the Donbass, this is a red-herring and is the same playbook he used earlier in Georgia. Russia does not get to tell Ukraine what its foreign policy should be and what alliances it should be a part of.
Zelensky did not 'egg' on Russia. Russia and Vladimir Putin chose to invade. They thought Zelensky and the Ukrainians would roll-over and capitulate. That was stupid, ignorant and embarrassing for Russia, their military, their intelligence agencies, and for Vladimir Putin who looks like a fool now. You state that Ukraine lost territory, but a lot of the lost territory was already occupied by Russian backed forces. Nonetheless, the alternative to losing some of the country is losing the whole country, so it is ridiculous to claim this was a mistake. The 100,000 casualties and Ukraine getting 'wrecked' is not on Zelensky, it is on the unprovoked invaders of a sovereign nation, aka Russia. Furthermore, if Ukraine allowed Russia to occupy them, it is highly probably that Ukraine would get 'wrecked' anyway (see the Holodomor and how Russia (by way of the Soviets) killed millions of Ukrainians). All the current carnage is solely because of the direct actions of the Russia government. It is not Ukraine's fault they are defending themselves. That is akin to saying it is America's fault they fought the Japanese in WWII, and they should have ceded their right to having a Pacific Navy, and that Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor to remove that Navy.
The hundreds of millions of people around the world that will suffer the collateral damage need to be angry with Russia. If Vladimir Putin simply said 'No' to the question of whether Russia should invade Ukraine. There would be no energy shortage, there would be no pending food crisis, and there would be no refugee crisis. In fact, if Putin simply utters the words 'withdraw', several of those issues go away. Europe and Biden have done a fantastic job responding to the illegal and immoral Russian aggression. When you claim that internal politics drove this decision, I don't see your point, both sides agree on this, and there is no ideological grandstanding. That comment is just nonsense.
As for Kissinger and Mearsheimer, they are wrong, and there are plenty of geopolitical analysts out there that say so. In fact, there are plenty of geopolitical analysts that are not nearly as old, and have more recent and relevant research and contacts to inform their decisions. Furthermore, have you seen Kissinger recently, the dude is pushing 100 and looks like a walking corpse. I don't trust the mental capacity of someone that looks as old, tired and frail as him, particularly when it comes to current events. That may not be PC, but it is incredibly rare for the mind and body to not degrade at similar paces.
The last time Russia tried to invade Finland went super well. Let's see them try that again when Finland has NATO backing.
Finland's fleet of Gustavs (Messerschmidt Me109G, pictured above) registered 600+ wins to 27 losses vs the Soviet air force, which had a lot of wooden Polikarpovs and early Yaks. Not quite the same balance of power today, where even non-nuclear escalation heavily favors the Russians.
What contributed to the stable post-war relationships between the USSR and Finland was the fact that the Finns haven't historically had harmonious relationship with their western neighbor, Scandinavian heavyweight Sweden, which occupied Finland for almost a millennium, until the Russian Empire took it over in the early 19th century. The Finns have had a long history with Sweden, but that memory seems to have faded today.
Yea, the Finns memory of Sweden got replaced by fears of the Russians when they invaded them in 1939. The Finns have been so fearful of the Russians, they have been preparing for war since 1945. To the extent that Finland can house over 3 million people in bomb shelters in case the Russians attacked.
In a village in Europe there was a house of ill repute on top of a hill.
There was one man walking up the hill.
There was a second man inside the house.
There was a 3rd man that just exited the house and was walking down the hill.
Question: What is the ethnicity of each of those men?
Are you sure it's a house of ill repute and not an outhouse? Because if you meant the latter, I surely know the answer. Or maybe yours is another version of the joke I know so well? The difference would be that second man, inside the house. Aw geez, now I'm gonna be racking my brain over this...
In a village in Europe there was a house of ill repute on top of a hill.
There was one man walking up the hill.
There was a second man inside the house.
There was a 3rd man that just exited the house and was walking down the hill.
Question: What is the ethnicity of each of those men?
Are you sure it's a house of ill repute and not an outhouse? Because if you meant the latter, I surely know the answer. Or maybe yours is another version of the joke I know so well? The difference would be that second man, inside the house. Aw geez, now I'm gonna be racking my brain over this...
The man going up the hill is Russian.
The man in the house is Himalayan.
The man walking down the hill is Finnish.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
In a village in Europe there was a house of ill repute on top of a hill.
There was one man walking up the hill.
There was a second man inside the house.
There was a 3rd man that just exited the house and was walking down the hill.
Question: What is the ethnicity of each of those men?
Are you sure it's a house of ill repute and not an outhouse? Because if you meant the latter, I surely know the answer. Or maybe yours is another version of the joke I know so well? The difference would be that second man, inside the house. Aw geez, now I'm gonna be racking my brain over this...
The man going up the hill is Russian.
The man in the house is Himalayan.
The man walking down the hill is Finnish.
Boom! In my outhouse version, the second guy is European. Great example of sophisticated, worldly humor!
On that note, In the George Carlin, Apatow directed documentary, it is noted that when Sam Kinison burst on the scene, Carlin thought Sam was very, very good and it forced Carlin to up his own game.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
That scenario assumes that NATO will be able to put together a large land force in northern Finland capable of a ~150km advance towards Murmansk, or the main road servicing it. Or at the very least, air superiority over the entire peninsula east of Finland, from a handful of air bases that would somehow be able to withstand a barrage of Kalibr, Iskanders or even Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. In this situation, the Russian army would be marching towards Helsinki. FYI Finalnd has a population of 5 million, nearly 10 times smaller than Ukraine's...
Curious- do you ever go back and look at your old predictions? Because you have a terrible track record. How quickly did you say Russia would defeat Ukraine? Do you remember when you said the weather would dry out in April and Russia's tank divisions would resume their march on Ukraine?
Don''t get me wrong, I love a hot take, but yours are simultaneously confident/absolutist and hysterically inaccurate in hindsight. Perhaps you should just get out of the prediction game?
They do still tend to align extremely well with Putin Khylo's propaganda so you have that going for you.
I stand by those predictions, and they are being confirmed today. Russia is winning on the ground, they are slowly grinding down Ukrainian army in an attrition war where their huge edge in artillery is making a clear difference.
Kissinger's recent plea for a pragmatic deal is a tacit acknowledgement of the situation on the ground, the conflict has been one-sided since early April, when Russia has refocused on the Donbass and has been systematically breaching the defensive lines that Ukraine has built over its 8-year military campaign in the region.
There are about 15,000 Ukrainian troops that are being encircled in the Severdonetsk-Lysychansk "cauldron", one of the main Ukrainian defensive anchors in the region. The last anchor is the Kramatorsk-Soviansk line, beyond that Ukraine has no formal defensive lines set up. They are currently starting to build up a defensive cordon around Dnipro, in anticipation of Russian army progress deep into south-central Ukraine.
You stand by predictions that have been proven laughably wrong? Newsflash, Russia didn't win the war in days or weeks and their tanks didn't dominate in April. You probably still stand by your prediction that COVID will be gone in the US in July 2020 just like it disappeared from Europe. Yea, we all remember that prediction.
How many troops do you think Russia has lost? Do you think they promoted the Moskva to submarine status or did they have an accidental explosion on board? I wonder how far your assimilation of propaganda has gone. Do you think Navalny faked his own poisoning?
The number of Russian casualties falls somewhere between their own published stats and those from Ukraine and NATO-affiliated think tanks (I would put much of the MSM in that category). However Russia has significantly limited its early losses since around mid-April, when they consolidated their main focus on the Donbass front while holding the line in the southern front near Nikolayev. The loss ratio since then has been heavily slanted in Russia's favor, in a battle of attrition where Russia controls the "ligne of scrimage" and has far greater military resources.
Quote:
President Volodymyr Zelensky said during his speech in Davos that Russian troops in the Donbas currently deployed 20 times more military equipment than Ukraine has there. "Imagine how strong our warriors are, what a nation," he said, adding that Ukraine needs more long-range equipment to avoid the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
Zelensky, who is always prone to a bit of hyperbole, might be exaggerating the hardware differential a bit here, but he and his PR warriors (Arestovich etc) are now frantically trying to manage domestic expectations after skilfully having fed the narrative that they were winning the war. But the fact is, Russia has a big edge and is grinding down the main body of the Ukrainian armed forces in the pivotal Donbass front.
To use an analogy compatible with the focus of this board, the Ukraine war is like a 1980s Nebraska-Kansas or Nebraska-Missouri game where the underdog held his ground a bit early in the game, with the Huskers having uncharacteristically gone with the passing game in the first half resulting in a couple of interceptions. They are now back to their bread and butter wishbone attack, systematically grinding down the Kansas front 7, which is starting to tire out and suffer injuries early in the third quarter. That's where we are right now.
Back in April there was a belief that Ukraine could be saved with western Wunderwaffe, or wonder weapons, much like the Germans thought that they could turn the WW2 tide with their technologically advanced Me262s and other wonder weapons. The Javelin anti-tank system was literally beatified:
It proved to be largely ineffective, barely making a dent (literally so on Russian armor) as illustrated by the testimony of "Wali" a well-known Canadian sniper who signed up with the Ukrainian army and tried to hunt Russian tanks with the Javelin:
(Wali's wingman describes their attempt at using the Javelin at the 6:40 mark)
Basically the range of Russian tanks is much longer than the Javelin. As well, when the operators did manage to get close enough without being detected, their tanks have been able to sustain Javelin hits.
So the Ukrainians have asked for "smart" western artillery systems like the M-777 and the French Cesar system, which can track and respond in real time with pinpoint accuracy to enemy artillery. These have already been deployed on the Donbass and other fronts, but they have not made much of a difference due to their insufficient numbers (see Zelensky statement above). As well they can be countered by the mobile longer-range Russian MLRSs like the TOS system. So now the Ukrainian military is now requesting similar MLRS weapons systems, which once again are unlikely to make a pivotal difference due to the scale of the Russian inventory.
This whole war is very unfortunate, and could have been entirely avoided had Zelensky and his backers agreed to acknowledge Crimea being Russian, and had he applied the Minsk II agreement which provided for the cultural autonomy of the Donbass oblasts, and kept Ukraine relatively neutral, along the model that has worked very well for Finland since WW2.
Instead Zelensky was egged on to take on Russia with a blank check from the US taxpayer along with promises of wonderweapons and NATO might. Now he's looking at a truncated, landlocked Ukraine, having already lost Kherson and the whole land bridge from Donetsk, a quarter of the country, with the further prospect of losing Odessa, Karkhov and even Dnipro later this year, not to mention up to 100,000 casualties and his country getting "wrecked", as predicted by Mearsheimer. A true Ukrainian patriot who has the best interest of his people at heart would have behaved more rationally and taken the above offer.
Of course hundreds of millions of people around the world are also collateral damage to this war, which has aggravated global inflation and is putting pressure on the world food market. The responsible course of action would have been to avoid this crisis. unfortunately there has been a political vacuum in Europe after Merkel's retirement and in the US with the Biden administration, which isn't run by professional diplomats and analysts of the caliber of a Kissinger or Mearsheimer, driven instead by internal politics and ideological grandstanding.
This is delusional. Putin is now conscripting people over 40 because he's had so many casualties. Your ability to be consistently incredibly wrong but still confident in your prognosticating is remarkable.
The only threat to Russia from Ukraine was people in Russia realizing what am autocratic ****hole Russia has been under Putin. When Ukraine was a corrupt ****hole it was less of an issue, but western attempts to clean up Ukraine increased that risk and Putin couldn't allow it.
Why you have made it your mission to carry Putin's water is anyone's guess but your bias has clearly made you incapable of evaluating anything Russia related.
EDIT: I should also mention that in particular your defense of Russian's tanks smacks of ham-fisted propaganda. Russia has lost a huge number of tanks, many due to their long-known jack-in-the-box problem and Ukraine has done it with a variety of weapon systems including mortars launched by drones. How in the world can you say this garbage and think anyone will buy it?
Before Congress approved Biden's extra $40b for the war in Ukraine - with all Dems voting YES - @RandPaul was widely called a Kremlin agent for urging basic oversight and accountability.
I dunno, how about North Vietnam? Or maybe China really wants Taiwan, but after that, they would be willing to continue their empire through economic "influence", rather than military invasion? Or how about (shudder), the United States, which was -- more or less -- sated when it reached its Manifest Destiny? 
