Posted on 06/16/2022 7:22:54 PM PDT by marcusmaximus
primary objective is put a stop to what was obviously ongoing integration with the US military even before the invasion. enough of that and NATO membership becomes almost tangential.
we bragged we ran their air defenses from day 1. i suspect we had people pushing the firing buttons though that is denied. that arrangement and integration (whatever it wass) didn’t get set up overnight.
All of your answers missed the point.
The countries that prevailed had help. So does Ukraine.
In fact, Russia was defeated by Finland so you don’t know what you are talking about. The fact that Finland thereafter appeased Russia (until now) does not eliminate the fact Russia was defeated with terrible casualties and withdrew.
The 300 Spartans were lost, as have been cities in Ukraine, but the Greek nation rallied and won.
Likewise the Alamo fell but Texas defeated Mexico.
Actually, many many wars have unpredictable outcomes.
Point is you have no point. Everyone thought Ukraine would lose and quickly. so far they haven’t. Therefore, you have no idea of the outcome, in advance.
Factors other than the battlefield often decide wars. Like the Russian revolution and capitulation to Germany in WWI.
In this case so many things can happen including another revolution in Russia, or Putin’s death. No one knows. That’s why Ukraine fights on, as do all dedicated adversaries.
Had Lincoln been assassinated sooner, or lost the election to Mclellan, or if England had decided to break the Union embargo, or Grant been killed in action instead of Stonewall Jackson, the South might have won the Civil War. In fact it was doing so until Grant assumed control.
He is a lawyer by education. Also the head of the squash and something else organization.... He was part of the US/UK Iraqi Naval transition efforts, and he was ‘given’ a bronze star by the US President in 2010.....(according to kiki bio). At least he was in command of one or more UK ships, though.
What if?
What if you send in forces to take out the leadership in the capital and major population centers. Planning to put in your own puppet ruler and force a referendum on becoming Russian.
Just like Russia did in Crimea? They tried the same exact tactic and spectacularly failed.
Russia is losing. Losing population, losing economy (It is just beginning to sink in to the Russians that they are in trouble, hence the number leaving the country.), losing influence, losing respect of its own government and most importantly, their military has been shown to be far weaker than expected. Prewar Russia was the number 2 power in the world and Ukraine did not even register in the top 20. Any idea that somehow the number two power planned a slow grinding pyrrhic victory over a far weaker power is not rational.
Texas won its independence on the battlefield at San Jacinto. But it maintained its independence because Mexico, with a population of some 7 million, could not send an army sufficient to reconquer a nation of 40,000. The Dictator of the Day was never in a position to create a professional army large enough for him to lead in an expedition to retake all of Texas -- Mexico did retake San Antonio for a period -- while maintaining his position at home. And the Dictator of the Day was not about to raise a large expeditionary army that a subordinate would lead to Texas. Defeat would see him fall from loss of prestige, and victory would see his subordinate rise to the Presidency.
So long as Putin's Kleptocracy can maintain internal cohesion, Russia can probably continue a war of attrition. At least so long as the 152mm shells and propellant hold out. And they have been stockpiling them since Khrushchev was First Secretary.
Although Finland outpunched its weight and inflicted many more casualties against the USSR than they suffered...they still ultimately lost the Winter War, ceding territory to the Soviet Union. Then, during the Second Soviet-Finnish War, Finland allied with the Nazis to fight the Soviets starting in 1941. By the end of the war (which was a Soviet victory), Finland ended up agreeing to restore its borders to where they had been following the Winter War (among other concessions) and ended up paying $300 million in reparations to the USSR. You can argue whether or not the USSR's reputational damage was worth fighting Finland the first time 'round...but objectively speaking, the Soviets defeated Finland.
David Isreal defeated Goliath Arab nations?
Calling the Arab Nations a Goliath is a bit of a misnomer, given that Israel preemptively wiped out almost all of Egypt's Air Force, gaining air supremacy from the outset. Despite the disparity in terms of numbers, they were on par in terms of equipment; hardly a David vs. Goliath scenario.
And how about David patriots defeated Goliath British Empire?
Were it not for French aid (in both money, military support, and troops)...and were it not for something distracting the British Empire (namely, the Anglo-French War of 1778-1783, which pulled British attention to the West Indies, Europe, and India to fight France and later Spain), they would have been able to field more of their military might against the American colonies. The idea that America alone defeated the British is a historical fantasy.
300 Spartans holding off Goliath Persian Empire so the Greek states could rally and defeat said Empire.
The Battle of Thermopylae featured more than just Sparta; there were initially several thousand Greeks who blocked the pass of Thermopylae against the numerically superior Persians. However, a local named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks and revealed a path to get behind the Greek lines; the number of Thebans who remained behind actually outnumbered the Spartans (at 700 to 300). Though their holding action and sacrifice did provide the Greeks enough time to rally and stop the Second Persian invasion of Greece...the long view of history shows that within the next century, those same Greeks would fight amongst each other in the First and Second Peloponnesian Wars; Sparta, despite the hegemony it had won as a result, would end up reaching an inconclusive result in the Corinthian War against other Greek city-states...city-states, coincidentally, who had received aid from the Persians! By the end of that war, Persia gained full control over the west coast of Asia Minor from the Greeks, thus freeing them to turn their attention to capturing Egypt and Cyprus. It wouldn't be until the time of Alexander the Great that their territory would be threatened again by the Greeks (which, ironically, was because they gave way to the Macedonian Empire, a Goliath in its own right).
The affairs of the Greeks and Persians in those days was complicated, to be it mildly.
Britain surviving Dunkirk and emerging victorious.
Now you're stretching the metaphor; although the evacuation of so many British personnel from Dunkirk was an amazing feat, it was partially aided by the fact that the Germans decided to halt their advance for three days to solidify their pocket around the city; this is also notwithstanding the great amount of equipment that had to be abandoned. Though the British escaped with most of their boys, the French that remained behind did so to fight, but it wouldn't be enough to stop the Germans from entering Paris days later.
A true "David and Goliath" comparison would be if the Allies at Dunkirk had actually fought their way back despite the numerical superiority of the Nazis, forcing them to retreat. An evacuation to retrieve British soldiers from a hopeless battle (no matter how many were ultimately rescued) does not a "David and Goliath" moment make.
Texas defeating Mexico to gain independence.
A revolution involving less than 10,000 soldiers on both sides (combined!) doesn't even merit such a comparison. The Battle of the Alamo, for example, had a much greater impact on the political scene (in terms of whipping up fervor to draw more Texans into fighting Mexico) than it did militarily.
History is a tricky beast; resist the urge to use metaphors, because they turn out to be not applicable most of the time upon deeper inspection.
Finland defeated the Soviet Union. They lost some territory. So?
All your other examples prove nothing, and your answer about Dunkirk delves into your own fantasy about what would have happened that YOU would have considered a David over Goliath victory.
France was defeated by the German Blitzkrieg, also a surprise. Britain was overmatched and Churchill wasn’t talking about “fighting in the streets” just to be dramatic. But they hung on and survived until they returned to the continent and won.
It doesn’t matter America bailed them out. They hung on until some factor changed which have them victory.
So the Spartans had help. So?
You want a David/ Goliath example.
The original one. David / Goliath. How did that happen?
How did Buster Douglas destroy Mike Tyson?
Ali beat Foreman?
Etc.
NATO really thinks it can still spin this catastrophe? It is a war of attrition for the UFA. The Russians aren’t taking many casualties, but the public would have to know how the Russians are using combined arms to understand why. Uh, and yeah, the Russians are failing because they didn’t achieve a goal they didn’t have? Again, someone would have to know something about Ukraine to understand Russian war aims.
Diminished? Let’s see...Russia is devastated and weakened, of course, because of Biden’s and Nato’s brilliant use of sanctions. How do we know? Well, let’s see.... the Ruble has rocketed upward in value; Russia has a huge balance of payments surplus; the Global South and China are buying more from Russia than ever; Germany alone is buying almost as much petroleum from Russia as China, etc. More shockingly, the longer the Russians continue grinding the UFA in the east (which is the main industrial part of Ukraine), the worse those terrible problems get. Golly, we’ve really put Russia in a box /sarc/
If anyone cares about reality here, this is one of the best approximations you’ll find.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8yamGbFsEQ
What happens in Ukraine doesn’t depend on the opinions or keyboard heroics of anyone here. The war is essentially over. The Russians will probably take a few months to mop up, but they don’t need to hurry because the US and NATO sanctions are impoverishing Europe, enriching Russia, destroying the euro, threatening the world reserve status of the dollar, and resulting in alternative international institutions (e.g. SCO) to replace Western institutions such as the G 7 (8) and SWIFT. Moreover, taking things slowly minimizes Russian battlefield losses.
This war is the kind of thing that happens when elections are stolen. Incompetent US/NATO leadership, incompetent diplomacy, and no understanding of global finance and economics by the Biden administration have resulted in the slaughter in the Ukraine, the weakening of the US, an impending destruction economically of Europe, and the potential of a Russia/China/Global South alliance that has the potential to be far more powerful than NATO + Australia/NZ, + Japan + Korea.
Obama warned us - Joe really knows how to f*ck things up.
Like when the David Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho defeated Goliath United States at Little Bighorn?
Like when the David Boers defeated the Goliath British Empire in the Second Boer War?
Like when the David Serbs defeated the Goliath Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI?
If you honestly cannot understand the difference between single combat, and war on a national scale, well, bless your heart.
.
The victor in a military conflict doesn't cede territory to the country they defeated! Despite bleeding out the invading Soviets to a lopsided degree during the earlier months of winter, the Soviet counter-offensive by mid-February had pushed the Finns to the point of exhaustion. All told, the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940 resulted in Finland ceding about nine percent of its territory to the USSR.
In what universe does that constitute a victory for Finland??
All your other examples prove nothing, and your answer about Dunkirk delves into your own fantasy about what would have happened that YOU would have considered a David over Goliath victory...France was defeated by the German Blitzkrieg, also a surprise. Britain was overmatched and Churchill wasn’t talking about “fighting in the streets” just to be dramatic. But they hung on and survived until they returned to the continent and won....It doesn’t matter America bailed them out. They hung on until some factor changed which have them victory...So the Spartans had help. So?
Because every single scenario has numerous factors separating it from being a "David defeats Goliath" scenario, obviously.
You want a David/ Goliath example. The original one. David / Goliath. How did that happen?
David had the LORD God on his side, obviously. In addition, David took down Goliath with a single projectile from his sling before cutting his head off while the giant was dazed on the ground.
A mere shepherd boy taking down a renowned and feared giant in *one* strike, empowered with courage because of his faith in God; THAT'S what a "David beats Goliath" moment involves.
How did Buster Douglas destroy Mike Tyson?
By using superior reach to keep Tyson from getting inside (where the champion was at his strongest); because Tyson's cornermen (because of arrogance or forgetfulness) didn't even have ice packs or the endswell to stop the swelling over Tyson's left eye; because his cornermen were unable to adapt and give their boxer the advice he needed after being in a brawl for the first time in a long time; but Tyson still fought through nine rounds before finally being knocked out.
It was definitely an upset, to be sure; but Buster Douglas had a 29-4-1 (19 KO) record going into the fight (Tyson's record was 37-0, 33 KO), outweighing Tyson by over 10 pounds and overtowering him by 4.5 inches: a "David defeating Goliath" moment it was not by any means.
The metaphor might have been more applicable if Douglas had knocked out Tyson in the first round.
Ali beat Foreman?
This one is even less appropriate than Tyson vs. Douglas. Both Foreman and Ali were of the same height at 6'3"; Foreman only outweighed Ali by four pounds; Foreman's pre-fight record was 40-0 (37 KO), while Ali's was 44-2 (31 KO). Ali ended up knocking out Foreman in the eighth round.
Sports upsets (even those with great notoriety) do not automatically make for "David beat Goliath" moments.
Just like Russia did in Crimea? They tried the same exact tactic and spectacularly failed.
Russia is losing. Losing population, losing economy (It is just beginning to sink in to the Russians that they are in trouble, hence the number leaving the country.), losing influence, losing respect of its own government and most importantly, their military has been shown to be far weaker than expected. Prewar Russia was the number 2 power in the world and Ukraine did not even register in the top 20. Any idea that somehow the number two power planned a slow grinding pyrrhic victory over a far weaker power is not rational.
1.) Russia made no serious efforts to invade Kyiv and that was a clear strategic decision on the part of Moscow. Still, their invasion forces still pushed to the outskirts of the city without significant logistical support months ago and they are still not pushing into Kyiv. A forty mile long convoy of war materiel wasn't seriously countered by the Ukranians despite plenty of opportunity to do so through smart guerilla attacks or even some dumb airstrikes on roads and bridges. You really don't think Kyiv couldn't be under seige right now if that was the goa? Magically, it Just didn't happen. It's all a setup, and both sides know what the end game is mostly going to look like.
2.) I think its fair to assume Russia wanted a coup and puppet government, but really they can get the same strategic outcome without doing that for a far cheaper price. The Russians want the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine back in their sphere of influence. The Ukranian-speaking portions of Ukraine aren't particularly useful and controlling them is costly. Russia doesn't have to "win" outright to win strategically either, autonomy by the locals is effectively alignment with the Russians, and if you think the west has any skin in the game, there's no US flag waving in anybody's twitter profile in Dotensk or Crimea, except maybe as some sort of parody.
3.) Russia practically waltzed into Crimea without a fight in 2014. The entire peninsula went from full Ukraine control to full Russian control in less than two months with fewer than five total casualties. You can try to frame it however you like, but that was a surrender or an abdication, it was not a fight.
4.) I don't know where Russia is actually losing here with regard to Russia. Honestly I don't. Their monetary system is stronger than before the invasion, their economic position (exports of gas, fertilizer, and grains) is enhanced from the effects of this invasion, their military has suffered losses but it's all soviet-era weapons they have been putting out on the battlefield, not their latest and greatest. Their intellectual class is fleeing for the equivalent of our blue state intellectual class fleeing for red states? Really not a big effect on something like a Russia that has had its intellectual class fleeing for nearly forty years now.
Bookmarked
“Nowhere, not even once did Russia state a goal to seize all of Ukraine or even Kiev. It was in his why and what we’re doing speech. Destroy the uke military, stop Ukraine from joining NATO, denazify, and protect the Donbass and Lugansk republics.”
You do know the difference between “what”, “wgy”, and “because”, right?
That’s mostly about the “what” with a little bit of “because”. It wasn’t explaining why they were so hell bent on doing any of this (or doing it in Georgia and Chechnya before) in the first place.
Putin’s real motives are covered inside Russia. They weren’t in that speech but they’re in dozens of scholarly articles, panel discussions, q&as, and TV interviews with the key three sources of it: Dugin (Putin’s Brain), Zhirinovsky (Putin’s heart), and Putin himself.
Why does Putin want to destroy the Uke military? So he can park his tanks, howitzers and launchers in Uke territory. Unopposed. How do we know this? First, he said it repeatedly, second it’s exactly the same as what he did with Crimea (with Yanukovych ordering the Uke forces not to engage). Guess what, now Putin wants a formal transfer of sovereignty of Crimea from itself to Russia.
Adverse Possession. Look it up.
Why does he want to “denazify” every country east of Germany? Because “Denazification” is a propaganda term not a factual description. Its proper name is “Russification and de-Europeanisation”. The abolition of the right of self-determination, and the imposition of Kremlin control.
Why does Russia deeply oppose NATO when, like Ukraine, it hasn’t attacked Russia in 30 years? Because putin can’t get it through his roid raging head that the Soviet Union collapse was NOT a calamity. He wants to reverse that collapse, and NATO was the only force that kept the Soviet Union in check.
How is Russia protecting Donbas? They’re flattening it like they flattened Mariupol. They’ve just told the DPR they’re not going to reinforce it. They don’t want an independent DPR/LPR/Kherson any more than they want an independent Ukraine. They want either direct rule or puppet regional governments; separatism was only ever a pathway to full control.
As for Kyiv - for eight years Putin has been pushing for the restoration of Yanukovych to power - why, because Yanukovych was bought by the Kremlin in 2013 and Yanukovych would be an even more reliable puppet than Lukashenko.
The real strawman here is Uke Nazis. One minute Putin was saying there were only a few thousand of ttem, the next he’s calculating a minimum 5% of Ukraine’s general population needs to be denazified, then he said he needed to denazify Europe and Lavrov has said Israel is nazified.
Putin calling people nazified is like libtards calling MAGA people Nazis. It’s bollocks.
But the russians have operationally and tactically won.
“Russia has “strategically lost” the war in Ukraine and is a “more diminished power”, the head of the UK’s armed forces has said.”
Uh huh...
You get a thumbs up from me
It’s amusing how some Russian bots can pretend that Putin didn’t really intend to take Kyiv. He certainly did intend to do so.
When they claim that his failure to do so was because it was a diversion, they fail to explain why Putin would do something that would guarantee the West would arm Ukraine if the attempt to take Kyiv failed. Had the attempt just been an expansion of the territories they took in 2014, the West’s response would have been more much more muted. It would have also matched his propaganda about protecting russian speakers or whatever.
So if he had not planned to take Kyiv, he would have never sent forces there in the first place. He thought the Ukrainians military and government would quickly collapse and it didn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.