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.
NATO was unable to defeat goat herders in sandals who were wearing wet blankets to defeat thermal vision. Now what do you think would happen in a peer to peer war ?
NATO has never been in any such war. If you are talking Afghanistan, the US certainly won the war, they just failed at creating a modern democratic country afterwards. That has nothing to do with military hardware.
Quote:
NATO does not have the ability to defeat Russia in Eastern Europe ans was never meant to. It was meant to contain Russia east of Germany and cannot deploy to full capability in Ukraine or Russia. This proxy war is to the West's benefit, not Ukraine's.
You may not have noticed, but NATO has expanded to include much of Eastern Europe. Despite original goals from the 1970s, their capabilities and doctrines have evolved in the past 50 years.
Quote:
France would lose to Russia both in conventional and nuclear war. The UK would fare better, being an island and all.
Both points are probably erroneous, and completely irrelevant. Neither country will face Russia in a 1:1 war.
Quote:
People pushing for WW3 are completely irresponsible.
I agree. Good think nobody in authority is doing this.
Quote:
The safest course of action would be to pull back and let the Slavic peoples sort it out. An escalation would be a disaster for everyone but the elites.
This is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion you are completely wrong.
Fascinating article in Foreign Affairs by Garry Kasparov (Chair of the Human Rights Foundation, Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former world chess champion), and Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former political prisoner in Russia)
Arguing that the longer the war goes on, the more likely Russia will destabilize into chaos, they offer an alternative option that has been developed by a group of Russians in exile to turn Russia into a decentralized country, "transferring broad powers to the regions, including in the budgetary sphere. Such reforms would weaken Russia’s all-powerful imperial center: if the federal government does not have total control over state finances, then it won’t have the means to wage military adventures."
Regardless of how realistic their plans are, it's a fascinating read. I think Foreign Affairs lets you read one article for free.
Fascinating article in Foreign Affairs by Garry Kasparov (Chair of the Human Rights Foundation, Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former world chess champion), and Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former political prisoner in Russia)
Arguing that the longer the war goes on, the more likely Russia will destabilize into chaos, they offer an alternative option that has been developed by a group of Russians in exile to turn Russia into a decentralized country, "transferring broad powers to the regions, including in the budgetary sphere. Such reforms would weaken Russia’s all-powerful imperial center: if the federal government does not have total control over state finances, then it won’t have the means to wage military adventures."
Regardless of how realistic their plans are, it's a fascinating read. I think Foreign Affairs lets you read one article for free.
Wars do have a history of politically destabilizing the loser, and occasionally the winner.
WW1 destroyed Austria-Hungary and dramatically transformed Germany. It also lead to theRussian Revolution creating the USSR. The Ottoman Empire collapsed.
WW2 transformed the monarchy in Japan to a mere figurehead and turned the country into a democracy. Italy was changed from a fascist country to a dysfunctional democracy. The UK saw its empire fracture and hastened its disintegration.
Vietnam added to considerable social unrest in the USA.
Afghanistan and the economic costs of the Cold War presaged the dissolution of the USSR.
Not all wars result in this type of catastrophic change, and sometimes the wars are caused by political changes already underway (Chinese civil war, subsequent invasion by Japan, cultural revolution). It is reasonable to anticipate political fallout of some sort for Russia or they lose this war, as seems increasingly likely.
I wouldn't get too excited about the prospects of Russia dissolving. They do that from time to time, and they always come back to be a thorn in the side for their neighbors in the west. Plus, there are a number of radicals and groups there that would jump at the opportunity to gain power in such a large vacuum. Russia has a very large population of Muslims, some of which are likely the radicalized variety, and if they get their hands on the nukes, you can forget about the world being a peaceful place for the next few decades, or century.
Russia puts the boot on the Muslim population, largely because of all the terrorist attacks they have dealt with over their years from a few radicalized Muslims.
I think everybody expected Ukraine to be beaten fairly quickly and sue for peace, giving Putin favorable terms.
I don't think Putin expected the entire world to oppose him with the financial and military aid Ukraine is getting world wide.
I vaguely remember how the Finns resisted the Soviet invasion in World War 2, with intelligence information from MI-5 and the OSS. You just know that the Ukrainian military is getting direct intelligence from the Biden Administration, CIA, NSA, US Army Intelligence, etc. They have to be.
Technically speaking the US Office of Strategic Services was established 3 years after the Soviet's invasion of Finland.
I wouldn't get too excited about the prospects of Russia dissolving. They do that from time to time, and they always come back to be a thorn in the side for their neighbors in the west. Plus, there are a number of radicals and groups there that would jump at the opportunity to gain power in such a large vacuum. Russia has a very large population of Muslims, some of which are likely the radicalized variety, and if they get their hands on the nukes, you can forget about the world being a peaceful place for the next few decades, or century.
Russia puts the boot on the Muslim population, largely because of all the terrorist attacks they have dealt with over their years from a few radicalized Muslims.
Israel, India and Russia actually have a "backdoor" intelligence/military collaboration on how to handle Islamic extremism in their countries, with Israel helping with the majority of how to deal with it. It's all very interesting and has become more aggressive over time on handling internal extremism.
NATO was fighting an extremist groups that places religion and the afterlife over all else. They don't mind dying. And there is always another crop regenerating to take on the fight. That's why the idea of the USA concurring Afghanistan doesn't make sense unless we plan to permanently make it the 51st state or a territory of the USA. As soon as a we leave, the fanatics exit the caves and topple whatever fragile government we put up. Totally different culture. Most Americans cannot wrap their minds around that level of fanaticism, where the fighters literally do not fear death (and welcome it in some cases).
Russia luckily is not filled with people like that. I would suspect most Russians highly question the point of this war and are critical of it.
"Most Russians"?
And where do you get this idea from?
Did you see what they saw during the last eight years, in order to understand what is their perception of this war?
You clearly missed a lot of my posts in "Europe's" section for the last eight years, where I kept on pointing at how troublesome and potentially explosive the situation in Donbass was (and not just Donbass, but other regions of the South-East.)
It's easier for me to show you these compilations of the old footage, to explain what Russians saw all these years, while you were not aware of any of it most likely.
Here it is for example, piece by piece - it opens with the scene in the city of Kharkov back in 2014, after "Maidan," when the first Ukrainian nationalists, the youngsters from different regions showed up in this Eastern city and tried to take over the administrative building over there. What you see is the reaction of the local citizens to it, after the stand-off.
Then it goes into the scenes from the upheaval in Kharkov and an attempt to establish the independent from Kiev "Kharkov's republic" in the same manner as DNR and LNR.
Then at 0:56 it goes into the scene leading to the events to the burning of the administrative building in Odessa, where over 40 people, protesting the Maidan were burned alive and finished off when they tried to jump out of the windows.
At 5:51 - the vote to establish the independent from Kiev Donetsk People's republic,
At 2:38 - the beginning of the military actions in Donbass region, the rebels take up arms, to protect their land from Kiev's nationalist government and organizing block posts on their territory in Donbass. And then - the full-blown war in Donbass, after Poroshenko sends Ukrainian troops there.
At 3:15 you see the "Somali" unit, with "To Mariupol" written on one of the tanks, since Mariupol voted to separate from Kiev as well, after a lot of its civilians were killed by Ukrainian army during the celebration of the 9th of May ( the Victory Day over Hitler's Germany in Russia, as you might know.)
Putin simply ignored that vote back then, and that's when "Azov" was moved into Mariupol, as the potentially "troublesome" city. Not only that, but he discouraged the DNR fighters to go anywhere beyond the territories that he saw sufficient for his manipulations by Donbass. ( So you need to see both sides of the story, the genuine uprising in the South-East of the country and their desire to go their separate way, away from Kiev, and what Putin made out of it, insisting on the inclusion of those territories into Ukraine, whether they wanted it or not.)
And then of course ( the rest) you can see the military actions in Donbass.
Further on, in these next compilations ( it's all old footage, starting from 2014 minding you,) - it all starts with the scenes of the war in Donbass, with the local militia getting ready for the fight, and some Russian media/social life personality well-known in certain circles, arriving there (at 0:30.) There was a certain segment in the Russian society - let's put it this way, that took the case of Donbass much closer to their hearts than Kremlin ever did, so there was a lot of Russian volunteers going there to fight, there was money and goods collection for Donbass going on - the initiative among the Russians probably beyond what Kremlin wanted to see.
And then, from 1:31, you see the scenes from Ukraine itself, with all this trade-mark craziness of "jumping for Ukraine." Jumping soldiers, jumping crowds, jumping schoolchildren at (1:48,) in front of their school, chanting "kill the Russians, the one who is not jumping is a Russian."
Yearly marches in the center of Kiev with torches, honoring Bandera, Hitler's collaborator (1:35,) crowds of the Nationalists patrolling the streets with the baseball bats and threatening anyone disagreed with the newly-established system, ( 1:37), close ties between the new government and American government, (1:39 and on,) from there - yet again the burning administrative building in Odessa, with mass murders, and back to the war in Donbass.
So there were a lot of things that Russians saw, while you did not. So obviously they perceive this war differently than you do.
So it's difficult to say at this point, how many of them are against this war, and how many are genuinely supporting it, Putin or not.
However my guess would be, that the majority of them ( or at least half) are wholeheartedly supporting this war effort, seeing the whole situation with Ukraine as the existential threat, on a basis of everything they observed for the last eight years, as much as Putin's propaganda machine wanted to hush it at times.
I think everybody expected Ukraine to be beaten fairly quickly and sue for peace, giving Putin favorable terms.
I don't think Putin expected the entire world to oppose him with the financial and military aid Ukraine is getting world wide.
I vaguely remember how the Finns resisted the Soviet invasion in World War 2, with intelligence information from MI-5 and the OSS. You just know that the Ukrainian military is getting direct intelligence from the Biden Administration, CIA, NSA, US Army Intelligence, etc. They have to be.
Absolutely. Many so called advisors, trainers, mercenaries are probably military plants from NATO actually conducting/directing operations not just 'advising' or teaching.
A Navy Seal or 'ex' was killed in Ukraine this week. Supposedly AWOL
Fascinating article in Foreign Affairs by Garry Kasparov (Chair of the Human Rights Foundation, Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former world chess champion), and Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former political prisoner in Russia)
Arguing that the longer the war goes on, the more likely Russia will destabilize into chaos, they offer an alternative option that has been developed by a group of Russians in exile to turn Russia into a decentralized country, "transferring broad powers to the regions, including in the budgetary sphere. Such reforms would weaken Russia’s all-powerful imperial center: if the federal government does not have total control over state finances, then it won’t have the means to wage military adventures."
Regardless of how realistic their plans are, it's a fascinating read. I think Foreign Affairs lets you read one article for free.
I can't see the article, but certain parts of the second person bio appear to be missing.
Fascinating article in Foreign Affairs by Garry Kasparov (Chair of the Human Rights Foundation, Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former world chess champion), and Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Co-Founder of the Russian Action Committee, and a former political prisoner in Russia)
Arguing that the longer the war goes on, the more likely Russia will destabilize into chaos, they offer an alternative option that has been developed by a group of Russians in exile to turn Russia into a decentralized country, "transferring broad powers to the regions, including in the budgetary sphere. Such reforms would weaken Russia’s all-powerful imperial center: if the federal government does not have total control over state finances, then it won’t have the means to wage military adventures."
Regardless of how realistic their plans are, it's a fascinating read. I think Foreign Affairs lets you read one article for free.
For those of you who can't get past the paywall, it is reprinted here:
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.
