Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're really caught up on this 'civil war thing.' Words and concepts have meaning and are best applied to the facts on hand, not to every other revolution that can be dredged up where contexts differ. This to clarify:
Insurgencies during civil wars can be aided by outside powersbut it still needs to be a civil war. That's not what this is: Russians did not cross the border on February 24th to put the DPR and LPR in charge of Kyiv. Its goal was to itself control Ukraine. Poor little Donetsk and Luhansk were not worth the international fuss that would result even from a soft coup.
As explained many times and demonstrated by US failures many times, insurgencies only work when there is local support. If they worked in your lala land example then Why not just send insurgents in to NATO countries and then Russia will take over. Its a civil war.
Quote:
The longterm Russian plan for Ukraine was to create more people's republics or at least politically balkanize to undercut the power even of a puppet central government. Ukraine 'foreign policy' was to be handled by Russia. This failed, with now outright annexation of territory the apparent next attempt.
I can see why you think NATO has no plan because you have no plan. Yes Russia is trying to control Ukraine. Is this news to you? Do you think that explaining the sky is blue is worth anyone's time? Rand corporation has the wreck Russia plan.
NATO and Russia are in a proxy war controllled by two neoliberal camps of oligarchs.
Are we done yet ?
Russians were not Ukrainian insurgents even though it earlier supported the separatist insurgency. Still, Russia and Donetsk and Luhansk had divergent goals. Certainly they are more in sync in 2022 with Donetsk and Luhansk now to be annexed apparently as a reward for helping Russia fight for what Russia wants, no longer Ukrainian citizens fighting within a Ukrainian civil war but paid mercenaries of a sort.
Note - Once again this tendency to talk about anything other than Ukraine.[/quote]
You have this tendency not comprehend someone else's arguments. I told you why I talk about anything other than "Ukraine" directly because they are loaded with Russian/Ukrainina propaganda. Is this the 10th time I said this to you. Are you just slow?
No link. No opinion piece from a news source.
Nothing but what one person "thought" and what she "guessed".
Russia should send all their troops to Ukraine. It would do them good. You know, combat experience and all that. Can't buy that stuff.
Send all those motivated, healthy looking troops who marched so well. Be sure to put them in tanks so they will be safe.
That's what Ukraine has done.
I've read that their soldiers have been rotating through eastern Ukraine, fighting the Russians since 2014.
I didn't say that Russia didn't send ships. I am saying that those ships were irrelevant to the war and were mostly useless and were here hiding in ice free waters as much as anything. The Russian Navy has always been next to useless.
So you cut and paste your way out of "Russia did no such thing"?
Russia sent ships to dissuade Britain and France and now you say they are no good? That's your argument? Its not even the main point. The Brits hardly had anything better. American ironclads were the next horizon as long as they were near shore. All those "bad ships had to do is add guns sitting in the bay to help prevent a blockade. It was similar tactic the Spartans used against Athens at Syracuse. Bad navies that are not good at fighting in open seas fight better in tight quarters in the bay. That is why Athens lost the war.
And this is besides the main point which is Europeans powers were looking to get in the act in our civil war as well. Its the rule, not the exception when there is any interest involved. Its not about how effective Russia was. It was about Britain and France entering the American civil war. It seems to me you priority is to deprive Russians of all glory when the Russian role was incidental to the proxy/civil war argument.
As explained many times and demonstrated by US failures many times, insurgencies only work when there is local support. If they worked in your lala land example then Why not just send insurgents in to NATO countries and then Russia will take over. Its a civil war.
I can see why you think NATO has no plan because you have no plan. Yes Russia is trying to control Ukraine. Is this news to you? Do you think that explaining the sky is blue is worth anyone's time? Rand corporation has the wreck Russia plan.
Can you read this sentence?
[indent]NATO and Russia are in a proxy war controllled by two neoliberal camps of oligarchs.
You missed the editors note at the top of your linked article from 2019. It said this:
Quote:
Editor's Note, April 2022: We encourage you to explore this research brief and the full report that it is based on. However, because Russian state media entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research in recent weeks, we also encourage you to explore this helpful resource on Russia's “firehose of falsehood” approach to propaganda and our research on “Truth Decay,” which is a phenomenon that is driven in part by the spread of disinformation.
They , and for that matter the French, nearly intervened in the US civil war.
I think that calls for a cite. The South - who massively overplayed their hand in every respect - would probably claim so, but I'd like to see a cite from a British source.
So you cut and paste your way out of "Russia did no such thing"?
Russia sent ships to dissuade Britain and France and now you say they are no good? That's your argument? Its not even the main point. The Brits hardly had anything better. American ironclads were the next horizon as long as they were near shore. All those "bad ships had to do is add guns sitting in the bay to help prevent a blockade. It was similar tactic the Spartans used against Athens at Syracuse. Bad navies that are not good at fighting in open seas fight better in tight quarters in the bay. That is why Athens lost the war.
And this is besides the main point which is Europeans powers were looking to get in the act in our civil war as well. Its the rule, not the exception when there is any interest involved. Its not about how effective Russia was. It was about Britain and France entering the American civil war. It seems to me you priority is to deprive Russians of all glory when the Russian role was incidental to the proxy/civil war argument.
You orginally responded to this quote of mine with pictures of Russian ships to prove they did in fact come into US ports:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swake View Post
Russia did nothing of the sort. Russia has never had any sort of blue water navy and the Russian ships that came to American ports during during the US Civil War were weak and pointless.
Note the bolded section.
About that Russian "fleet", it was largly running from the vastly superior French and British fleets and wanted safe ports where they would not be ice blocked. Again, this quote regarding the Russian "fleet":
Quote:
The fleet was very weak, even weaker
than it appeared on paper. It was made up of a small squadron in
the Pacific, seven war vessels of various descriptions at Cronstadt,
and a frigate in the Mediterranean. They were all, or nearly all.
of wood, and, although they had engines, the principal means of
motion was still the sail, the orders being that steam should be re-
sorted to only in case of urgent necessity
So basically, as with anything else - Russian technical/organizational side initially comes across as half-operational.
But on your guard.
They always prevail at the end.
The Russian Navy? That's hilarious. They're mostly famous for sending their Baltic Fleet around the world to teach Japan a lesson, back in 1904. Then, when they arrived in 1905, they were wiped out in a day. But the staggering amount of idiocy in that adventure could fill a thread on its own.
In 1860, the Brits had over fifty steam-powered ships of the line. Russia had ten.
The idea that the Russian navy kept the Brits from interfering in a foreign civil war that didn't hold a lot of interest for them, it's just - silly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No link. No opinion piece from a news source.
