Avdiivka about to fall ?

[tgw]

Until 3-4 days ago many news and videos were gloating over Ruzzian losses in Avdiivka, describing the terricon as formidable defensive ground.

 

Now there are much less news from Avdiivka, the terricon appears to have been taken by Ruzzia, it is marked as under Ruzzian control on deepstatemap.

https://deepstatemap.live/#15/48.1829/37.7153

 

Meanwhile, Ukraine evacuates civilians from the region:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-disregards-losses-presses-ukraines-avdiivka-2023-10-25/

 

The Ruzzians sent 3 brigades in, lost at least one:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/10/23/the-russians-sent-three-brigades-toward-avdiivka-just-two-came-back

 

Ruzzian losses during that offensive are probably between 7000 and 10.000 personnel and about 200 armored vehicles in the last 10 days.

https://news.yahoo.com/none-made-sense-understanding-russia-213145335.html

Despite these losses, they are still pressing on.

 

I do not fully understand how this war is waged and why these attacks cannot be squashed be the defenders.

 

For example, the French CAESAR SPG shoots 6 shots a minute, a battery of them can thus fire 48 rounds per minute at 40+ Kilometers with a precision of a few meters.

 

Even just one salvo of 155mm fragmentation rounds would annihilate everything in a smaller target area, and I do mean everything. Let's imagine a full minute of fragmentation barrage.

 

Then, mines can also be deployed via artillery or rocket artillery.

 

So I wonder about why this isn't done, there must be reasons I don't understand.

 

[Danderman123]

Rope-a-dope.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:14 PM, tgw said:

I do not fully understand how this war is waged and why these attacks cannot be squashed be the defenders.

 

For example, the French CAESAR SPG shoots 6 shots a minute, a battery of them can thus fire 48 rounds per minute at 40+ Kilometers with a precision of a few meters.

 

Even just one salvo of 155mm fragmentation rounds would annihilate everything in a smaller target area, and I do mean everything. Let's imagine a full minute of fragmentation barrage.

 

Then, mines can also be deployed via artillery or rocket artillery.

 

So I wonder about why this isn't done, there must be reasons I don't understand.

Could be as simple as needing more ammunition than can be supplied.

While researching this topic, I found the below. The more rounds a weapon uses the more has to be transported thousands of miles, assuming they are even available.

No army can function without it's supply train.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/1/russia-pursues-avdiivka-with-meat-assaults-in-a-replay-of-bakhmut

Both sides appeared to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for ordnance. The Bloomberg news agency quoted unnamed sources as saying that the European Union had supplied only a third of the one million shells it has promised Ukraine by April.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:14 PM, tgw said:

Ruzzian losses during that offensive are probably between 7000 and 10.000 personnel and about 200 armored vehicles in the last 10 days.

 

Ukraine will run out of cannon fodder before Russia does.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/1/russia-pursues-avdiivka-with-meat-assaults-in-a-replay-of-bakhmut

Retired Ukrainian Colonel Petro Chernyk said Russia could potentially call on up to 3 million former conscripts trained in basic combat and, despite the fact that Ukraine has “destroyed” about 25,000 Russian soldiers a month, these were always immediately replaced.

 

[RayC]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Ukraine will run out of cannon fodder before Russia does.

 

 

 

Surely the relative casualty rates must be a factor?

[SpaceKadet]

As Zelensky himself said: "We get stuff to survive, but not to win.." sorry, can't find the link at the moment.

 

All the heavy equipment have been coming too late and in small amounts. What the Ukraine would need is a few B52's and just carpet bomb the Russian positions every day. And definitely some modern fighter jets to establish air dominance.

After a year of this conflict, I predicted that it would last a long time and unfortunately will not be resolved unless there is a direct NATO involvement. What may follow if that happens is not a pleasant thought.

 

Russia can produce almost unlimited supply of tanks and armored vehicles. They don't need to be battle proven or even protect the crews. All they need to do is just destroy the opponents by the sheer numbers. Russian army is good at that.

 

Also. one has to understand that Russia will never accept unconditional surrender. There will never be any negotiated peace. It's in the national pride, they might lose battles, but ultimately win the war. It has been like that for hundred of years. So I really don't have an answer how this conflict might end.

 

Additionally, what currently makes things more difficult for Ukraine, is the conflict in Israel, and more aggressive aspirations by China to dominate the SCS, and Taiwan.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Russia can produce almost unlimited supply of tanks and armored vehicles. They don't need to be battle proven or even protect the crews. All they need to do is just destroy the opponents by the sheer numbers. Russian army is good at that.

Agree. They have the WW2 experience to prove that. The Sherman tank was called the Tommy Cooker by the Germans for unpleasant reasons. The advantage of the Sherman was that it could be mass produced easily and they did outproduce the Germans. The German tanks were far superior and better guns, but sheer numbers were against them, as they took longer to build.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Also. one has to understand that Russia will never accept unconditional surrender. There will never be any negotiated peace. It's in the national pride, they might lose battles, but ultimately win the war. It has been like that for hundred of years. So I really don't have an answer how this conflict might end.

I can venture a suggestion as to how it will end.

Eventually America and the EU nations will stop pouring unlimited money into Ukraine for any of a dozen possible scenarios and the war will end with negotiations involving transfer of land to Russia and a guarantee of no NATO membership.

[RayC]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can venture a suggestion as to how it will end.

Eventually America and the EU nations will stop pouring unlimited money into Ukraine for any of a dozen possible scenarios and the war will end with negotiations involving transfer of land to Russia and a guarantee of no NATO membership.

 

If that does occur then imo it will be a betrayal of Ukraine akin to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and, like that betrayal, a collosal mistake.

 

We can all hope that the outcome would not be the same as in 1938, but imo there is little evidence to suggest that any such action would appease an aggressive dictator like Putin.

Edited November 7, 2023 by RayC
Addition of missing word: action

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, RayC said:

 

If that does occur then imo it will be a betrayal of Ukraine akin to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and, like that betrayal, a collosal mistake.

 

We can all hope that the outcome would not be the same as in 1938, but imo there is little evidence to suggest that any such action would appease an aggressive dictator like Putin.

There comes a time to admit that they made a mistake.

The US has had plenty of practice at staying too long, or at all, and having to make a humiliating exit. Eg when they abandoned Sth Vietnam to the North despite losing 50,000 men, Iraq with many dead American and allied boys, and when they abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban ( even donating millions of $ worth of weapons to them ). Of course in Ukraine it's dead Ukrainians and not Americans.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, RayC said:

We can all hope that the outcome would not be the same as in 1938, but imo there is little evidence to suggest that any such action would appease an aggressive dictator like Putin.

You guys keep saying that over and over as if it's true, but the allies didn't have nuclear missiles in 1938.

Also, seeing as how Russia got stalemated by Ukraine, what would possibly convince him that he could defeat NATO? Perhaps you are suggesting that NATO is a paper tiger, good only for letting other people do the fighting.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You guys keep saying that over and over as if it's true, but the allies didn't have nuclear missiles in 1938.

 

Why does the non-existence of allied nuclear weapons in 1938 make the comparison invalid?

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Also, seeing as how Russia got stalemated by Ukraine, what would possibly convince him that he could defeat NATO? Perhaps you are suggesting that NATO is a paper tiger, good only for letting other people do the fighting.

 

A negotiated peace with a loss of Ukrainian land would be seen as a victory for Putin's aggression. How could it be viewed any other way?

 

Such an outcome might not convince Putin that he could take control of disputed territories in NATO countries e.g. Estonia but it would probably embolden him to cement Russia's position in non-NATO countries such as Georgia and Moldova, in the (relatively) safe knowledge that NATO support will be minimal.

Edited November 8, 2023 by RayC
Insertion of missing word: him

[RayC]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There comes a time to admit that they made a mistake.

 

How have NATO/ the US made a mistake in trying to support the basic principle of Ukrainian self-determination?

 

Surely it can only be considered a mistake if you believe that the Russian invasion is justified? Is that your position?

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The US has had plenty of practice at staying too long, or at all, and having to make a humiliating exit. Eg when they abandoned Sth Vietnam to the North despite losing 50,000 men, Iraq with many dead American and allied boys, and when they abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban ( even donating millions of $ worth of weapons to them ). Of course in Ukraine it's dead Ukrainians and not Americans.

 

You refuse to acknowledge the parallels between Czechoslovakia in 1938, but contend that there is a comparison with more recent wars involving the US. As you say yourself, the West (US and NATO member states) are not suffering casualties in Ukraine so what are the similarities?

[tgw]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There comes a time to admit that they made a mistake.

The US has had plenty of practice at staying too long, or at all, and having to make a humiliating exit. Eg when they abandoned Sth Vietnam to the North despite losing 50,000 men, Iraq with many dead American and allied boys, and when they abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban ( even donating millions of $ worth of weapons to them ). Of course in Ukraine it's dead Ukrainians and not Americans.

 

As you mention USA (and by extension, NATO) "staying too long", this joke told by Zelensky at Letterman's late night show comes to mind:

 

“Two Jewish guys from Odesa meet up,” Zelensky says. “One asks the other: ‘So what’s the situation? What are people saying?'"

“And he goes, ‘What are people saying? They are saying it’s a war.'”

“What kind of war?”

“Russia is fighting NATO.”

“Are you serious?”

“Yes, yes! Russia is fighting NATO.”

“So how’s it going?”

“Well, 70,000 Russian soldiers are dead. The missile stockpile has almost been depleted. A lot of equipment is damaged, blown up.”

“And what about NATO?”

“What about NATO? NATO hasn’t even arrived yet.”

 

The joke is almost a year old, so of course the figures need to be updated, multiplied by 4 or 5.

 

So much about "staying"

[tgw]

On 11/7/2023 at 10:47 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I can venture a suggestion as to how it will end.

Eventually America and the EU nations will stop pouring unlimited money into Ukraine for any of a dozen possible scenarios and the war will end with negotiations involving transfer of land to Russia and a guarantee of no NATO membership.

 

Maybe.

But that would be the worst outcome that can be anticipated based on the current situation.

 

And that's thanks to Western support to Ukraine.

If there had been no support, Putin's Ruzzians would now probably already have made Ukraine a puppet state and invaded Moldova, as well as launching provocative hostile actions against the Baltic States.

 

And the Chinese would be all over the Spratly, weighing attacking Taiwan or not.

 

Instead, Putin's ambitions have been severely cut back.

 

The West stopping now would of course be not only a betrayal but also a huge strategic mistake.

 

Putin's Ruzzia is an ENEMY. The little man is a machiavelic, evil paranoid narcisst and cannot be allowed to develop any further plans.

[tgw]

Regarding my first post in this thread, it seems that Ukrainian defences are holding for the moment.

 

The situation is reminiscent of Bakhmut, with the difference that Avdiivka has benefited from years of fortification work, since 2014.

 

I wonder if the Ukrainians aren't holding back some firepower, just enough to make the Ruzzians believe they could breakthrough if the just throw enough men at it.

I hope that is the case.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Why does the non-existence of allied nuclear weapons in 1938 make the comparison invalid?

 

 

A negotiated peace with a loss of Ukrainian land would be seen as a victory for Putin's aggression. How could it be viewed any other way?

 

Such an outcome might not convince Putin that he could take control of disputed territories in NATO countries e.g. Estonia but it would probably embolden him to cement Russia's position in non-NATO countries such as Georgia and Moldova, in the (relatively) safe knowledge that NATO support will be minimal.

Why does the non-existence of allied nuclear weapons in 1938 make the comparison invalid?

 

Because Britain was a toothless tiger, the military having been run down during the interlude. Hitler knew, IMO, that he could ignore Chamberlain. It was Churchill ( and no doubt a few of similar mind ) that got the British re arming in  time for the Battle of Britain.

The resounding defeat of the British army by the Germans proves my point.

Now, it doesn't matter that the British military is but a shadow of it's BAOR glory days, as Britain has nuclear arms. Even the most pathetically armed country has a powerful reason not to mess with it if it has nukes.

If Russia had no nukes would NATO still not be in Ukraine, and if Ukraine had nukes would Russia have invaded?

 

A negotiated peace with a loss of Ukrainian land would be seen as a

 victory for Putin's aggression. How could it be viewed any other way?

 

Eventually Ukraine will, IMO, have to reach a negotiated peace with Russia, which will also be seen as a victory for Putin. A lot of people died and a lot of infrastructure got destroyed in the interim.

 

it would probably embolden him to cement Russia's position in non-NATO countries such as Georgia and Moldova,

 

The fate of such as Georgia and Moldova does not keep me awake at night. I'm more concerned about the fate of the Palestinians as they face the onslaught of that American ally, with American weapons and bombs. Seems that they may be better off surrendering to Russia than being subjected to another American war of liberation, which in the past few decades leaves the country being "helped" in chaos and usually lost anyway. America hasn't so far achieved more than death and destruction in Ukraine, and I'm pretty sure Georgia and Moldova will decide they don't need similar American help against Russia.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, RayC said:

How have NATO/ the US made a mistake in trying to support the basic principle of Ukrainian self-determination?

Ukraine is not in NATO, ergo it's not up to NATO to intervene in a dispute between two former Soviet countries.

By all means the European countries and America could have intervened as individual countries, but I doubt the Europeans would have done so without America.

How long will the European countries continue THEIR support if the GOP succeed in halting American aid to Ukraine?

12 hours ago, RayC said:

Surely it can only be considered a mistake if you believe that the Russian invasion is justified? Is that your position?

 

My position is that a squabble between 2 former Soviet countries should have been left to them to sort out.

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

As you say yourself, the West (US and NATO member states) are not suffering casualties in Ukraine so what are the similarities?

How very decent of you to be happy that our side isn't sending body bags home, but are Ukrainian boys mere pawns to you to be so indifferent to their fate?

[RayC]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ukraine is not in NATO, ergo it's not up to NATO to intervene in a dispute between two former Soviet countries.

 

I should have said "NATO member states" in my original post to be clearer.

 

In any event, NATO's involvement as an organisation has been limited mainly to co-ordination (including that of humanitarian aid. Do you consider this to be inappropriate?). Good article here with some experts suggesting that NATO, as an organisation, hasn't done enough

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/87799

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

By all means the European countries and America could have intervened as individual countries,

 

That is exactly what they have done!

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

but I doubt the Europeans would have done so without America.

 

US assistance has been - and hopefully will continue to be - invaluable, but European support would have been forthcoming - and will continue to be forthcoming - in any event.

 

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-clearly-overtakes-us-with-total-commitments-now-twice-as-large/

 

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How long will the European countries continue THEIR support if the GOP succeed in halting American aid to Ukraine?

 

It appears that the EU (and probably the UK) will, rightly, offer long-term support (see also link in previous paragraph)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ft.com/content/8e088784-bd54-49e9-b710-520d84d42dc3&ved=2ahUKEwiu48_P6LWCAxVSr1YBHYfbCzMQ0PADKAB6BAgiEAE&usg=AOvVaw2yq13KJntvCTdpefAps8_b

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

My position is that a squabble between 2 former Soviet countries should have been left to them to sort out.

 

And ignore the implications and consequences of allowing a powerful, aggressive, expansionist state to do what it likes in the region unopposed.

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

How very decent of you to be happy that our side isn't sending body bags home, but are Ukrainian boys mere pawns to you to be so indifferent to their fate?

 

Spare me the patronising, sarcastic, holier-than-thou attitude.

 

There would be a lot fewer body bags filled with Russians and Ukrainians if Putin hadn't launched his invasion in the first place. That is a fact - not an opinion - but is something that you refuse to accept or acknowledge.

[RayC]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why does the non-existence of allied nuclear weapons in 1938 make the comparison invalid?

 

Because Britain was a toothless tiger, the military having been run down during the interlude. Hitler knew, IMO, that he could ignore Chamberlain. It was Churchill ( and no doubt a few of similar mind ) that got the British re arming in  time for the Battle of Britain.

 

The UK military had been run down during the inter-war years but it was far from "a toothless tiger". The Royal Navy dwarfed the German navy in its' size and capabilities.

 

More importantly in 1939, European Allied military strength (UK, France, Low countries) was far greater than Germany. Indeed, in terms of size France's military strength alone was almost as great as Germany's. Where Germany had the decisive advantage in 1939 was in terms of the quality of its' resources (especially human resources in the army).

 

Nevertheless, going to war in 1939 was a huge risk for Hitler. From a German perspective, things couldn't have gone better: Never in their wildest dreams did the German high command expect to sweep through the Low countries and France in six weeks.

 

Back to the original point: The non-existence of Allied nuclear weapons in 1939 is a complete red herring.

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The resounding defeat of the British army by the Germans proves my point.

 

Err ...  fortunately, the Allies won the war!

 

I assume that you are referring to the defeat of the British Expeditionary Force?

 

It proves nothing.

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Now, it doesn't matter that the British military is but a shadow of it's BAOR glory days, as Britain has nuclear arms. Even the most pathetically armed country has a powerful reason not to mess with it if it has nukes.

 

A nuclear deterrent is a powerful weapon

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If Russia had no nukes would NATO still not be in Ukraine,

 

Possibly not

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

and if Ukraine had nukes would Russia have invaded?

 

Possibly not but what's your point?

 

It does not negate my contention that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is an act of expansionism akin to Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The existence of NATO hopefully means that Putin will not expand further westwards, but that will be cold-comfort to non-aligned states such as Georgia and Moldova.

 

No doubt, if and when Russia invades those states you would again view it as just a bi-lateral issue? (Postscript: Your response below answers my question).

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

A negotiated peace with a loss of Ukrainian land would be seen as a

 victory for Putin's aggression. How could it be viewed any other way?

 

Eventually Ukraine will, IMO, have to reach a negotiated peace with Russia, which will also be seen as a victory for Putin. A lot of people died and a lot of infrastructure got destroyed in the interim.

 

So what was (is) the alternative other than for Ukraine to resist? Should she have simply agreed at the outset to whatever demands Putin made?

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

it would probably embolden him to cement Russia's position in non-NATO countries such as Georgia and Moldova,

 

The fate of such as Georgia and Moldova does not keep me awake at night.

 

See my previous comment above.

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

I'm more concerned about the fate of the Palestinians as they face the onslaught of that American ally, with American weapons and bombs.

 

A completely different topic

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Seems that they may be better off surrendering to Russia than being subjected to another American war of liberation,

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

which in the past few decades leaves the country being "helped" in chaos and usually lost anyway.

 

"they" being whom? Ukraine? 

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

America hasn't so far achieved more than death and destruction in Ukraine, and I'm pretty sure Georgia and Moldova will decide they don't need similar American help against Russia.

 

So that's it! When all is said and done, your sole argument for Putin's naked aggression and invasion of Ukraine is that it is justified as being a reaction to what you perceive as US hegemony in the region. You do not care for the fate of Ukrainians, or Russians for that matter.

[tgw]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

America hasn't so far achieved more than death and destruction in Ukraine, and I'm pretty sure Georgia and Moldova will decide they don't need similar American help against Russia.

 

What a ridiculous thing to say.

At the very least, the USA have achieved that Ukraine still exists as an independent country today.

 

Your comments about how countries should submit to Ruzzia are disgusting.

 

What first hand or second hand experience or memories of Soviet / Russian occupation and oppression do you have ?

 

I have family in the former Democratic Republic of Germany and currently in Ukraine.

[Danderman123]

On 11/7/2023 at 10:47 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I can venture a suggestion as to how it will end.

Eventually America and the EU nations will stop pouring unlimited money into Ukraine for any of a dozen possible scenarios and the war will end with negotiations involving transfer of land to Russia and a guarantee of no NATO membership.

A more likely outcome is that Ukraine not only evicts Russia from Ukraine but also creates a buffer zone inside Russia that Ukraine controls. Putin is removed from office, and Russia begins to slowly fall apart. And no peace agreement until long after there is a new government in Russia. 

 

Which means no more talking points from Russia for you.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I should have said "NATO member states" in my original post to be clearer.

 

In any event, NATO's involvement as an organisation has been limited mainly to co-ordination (including that of humanitarian aid. Do you consider this to be inappropriate?). Good article here with some experts suggesting that NATO, as an organisation, hasn't done enough

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/87799

 

 

That is exactly what they have done!

 

 

US assistance has been - and hopefully will continue to be - invaluable, but European support would have been forthcoming - and will continue to be forthcoming - in any event.

 

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-clearly-overtakes-us-with-total-commitments-now-twice-as-large/

 

 

 

It appears that the EU (and probably the UK) will, rightly, offer long-term support (see also link in previous paragraph)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ft.com/content/8e088784-bd54-49e9-b710-520d84d42dc3&ved=2ahUKEwiu48_P6LWCAxVSr1YBHYfbCzMQ0PADKAB6BAgiEAE&usg=AOvVaw2yq13KJntvCTdpefAps8_b

 

 

And ignore the implications and consequences of allowing a powerful, aggressive, expansionist state to do what it likes in the region unopposed.

 

 

Spare me the patronising, sarcastic, holier-than-thou attitude.

 

There would be a lot fewer body bags filled with Russians and Ukrainians if Putin hadn't launched his invasion in the first place. That is a fact - not an opinion - but is something that you refuse to accept or acknowledge.

Unlike you I'm not discussing what "might have been" and "wouldn't it be great if such and such hadn't happened". I'm discussing what has happened and what needs to be done to end it.

 

Ukraine had the opportunity to save all the lives by negotiating, but Zelensky apparently preferred death and destruction.

 

 

 

And ignore the implications and consequences of allowing a powerful, aggressive, expansionist state to do what it likes in the region unopposed.

 

Only in non NATO countries and Europe has been fighting for thousands of years, and will continue to do so. It's in their nature.

 

Wasn't it true after WW2 that a powerful, aggressive, expansionist state did what it liked in the region, and despite being at their highest military power, the western allies did nothing to help the countries being taken over by the Soviets? So, don't tell me that we have to have WW3 to save them now.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

A more likely outcome is that Ukraine not only evicts Russia from Ukraine but also creates a buffer zone inside Russia that Ukraine controls. Putin is removed from office, and Russia begins to slowly fall apart. And no peace agreement until long after there is a new government in Russia. 

 

Which means no more talking points from Russia for you.

You dreamer you. Thanks for the humorous post.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, RayC said:

"they" being whom? Ukraine? 

No. The other eastern non NATO countries you reference.

 

They don't need Americans "liberating" them and leaving their countries destroyed and economies ruined.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, RayC said:

So that's it! When all is said and done, your sole argument for Putin's naked aggression and invasion of Ukraine is that it is justified as being a reaction to what you perceive as US hegemony in the region. You do not care for the fate of Ukrainians, or Russians for that matter.

Hmmm Adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 22.

Please don't try to tell me what I perceive unless I state it.

 

I certainly care about the dead that didn't have to die. Too many boys died to make the 1% richer through war already. We don't need more. I don't care so much about which flag flies over a country far far away.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The UK military had been run down during the inter-war years but it was far from "a toothless tiger". The Royal Navy dwarfed the German navy in its' size and capabilities.

 

More importantly in 1939, European Allied military strength (UK, France, Low countries) was far greater than Germany. Indeed, in terms of size France's military strength alone was almost as great as Germany's. Where Germany had the decisive advantage in 1939 was in terms of the quality of its' resources (especially human resources in the army).

 

Nevertheless, going to war in 1939 was a huge risk for Hitler. From a German perspective, things couldn't have gone better: Never in their wildest dreams did the German high command expect to sweep through the Low countries and France in six weeks.

 

Back to the original point: The non-existence of Allied nuclear weapons in 1939 is a complete red herring.

 

 

Err ...  fortunately, the Allies won the war!

 

I assume that you are referring to the defeat of the British Expeditionary Force?

 

It proves nothing.

 

 

A nuclear deterrent is a powerful weapon

 

 

Possibly not

 

 

Possibly not but what's your point?

 

It does not negate my contention that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is an act of expansionism akin to Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The existence of NATO hopefully means that Putin will not expand further westwards, but that will be cold-comfort to non-aligned states such as Georgia and Moldova.

 

No doubt, if and when Russia invades those states you would again view it as just a bi-lateral issue? (Postscript: Your response below answers my question).

 

 

So what was (is) the alternative other than for Ukraine to resist? Should she have simply agreed at the outset to whatever demands Putin made?

 

 

See my previous comment above.

 

 

A completely different topic

 

 

 

"they" being whom? Ukraine? 

 

 

So that's it! When all is said and done, your sole argument for Putin's naked aggression and invasion of Ukraine is that it is justified as being a reaction to what you perceive as US hegemony in the region. You do not care for the fate of Ukrainians, or Russians for that matter.

You are apparently not aware of forum rule 7. My bolding.

 

7. Do not quote more than three multiple nested quotes. Only quote the person you are replying to, and only quote the relevant section that you are discussing.

 

Have a nice day.

[Danderman123]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmm Adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 22.

Please don't try to tell me what I perceive unless I state it.

 

I certainly care about the dead that didn't have to die. Too many boys died to make the 1% richer through war already. We don't need more. I don't care so much about which flag flies over a country far far away.

Putin launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. 

 

But, you blame someone else for all the dead.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

Putin launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. 

 

But, you blame someone else for all the dead.

Had Ukraine negotiated would Putin have invaded? Please don't give me one of your usual talking points, as I will just ignore it, and stop making me the topic as I'm not. It's getting boring.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unlike you I'm not discussing what "might have been" and "wouldn't it be great if such and such hadn't happened". I'm discussing what has happened and what needs to be done to end it.

 

Ukraine had the opportunity to save all the lives by negotiating, but Zelensky apparently preferred death and destruction.

 

 

 

And ignore the implications and consequences of allowing a powerful, aggressive, expansionist state to do what it likes in the region unopposed.

 

Only in non NATO countries and Europe has been fighting for thousands of years, and will continue to do so. It's in their nature.

 

Wasn't it true after WW2 that a powerful, aggressive, expansionist state did what it liked in the region, and despite being at their highest military power, the western allies did nothing to help the countries being taken over by the Soviets? So, don't tell me that we have to have WW3 to save them now.

 

When do you imagine that Russia would have entered into good-faith negotiations with Ukraine?

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No. The other eastern non NATO countries you reference.

 

They don't need Americans "liberating" them and leaving their countries destroyed and economies ruined.

Try telling that to the other countries that clearly want US and/or NATO support in defending themselves against Russian aggression.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had Ukraine negotiated would Putin have invaded? Please don't give me one of your usual talking points, as I will just ignore it, and stop making me the topic as I'm not. It's getting boring.

Once again, the imaginary negotiation opportunity.