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.
I said Russia has already experienced a strategic defeat on the geo-political stage in that they are a greatly diminished power on the world stage. Ukraine has made them look like the gang that can't shoot straight...literally.
Your approach is basically "Country 1 did this, so Country 1 is at fault" - without examining what happened between Country 1 and Country 2.
Russia is Country 1 and Ukraine is Country 2 - and in this case, Ukraine did a LOT of things to provoke Russia. And unfortunately, our country was involved in these provocations in one way or another.
Do not make the mistake of thinking Ukraine is a truly independent party; Zelensky is a puppet and a stooge; without the west's permission, he can't do much insofar this conflict with Russia is concerned. The UK and U.S. quashed what was a potential breakthrough in negotiations as far back as April, when the conflict wasn't 2 months old.
Sure, he's a very well paid puppet; his own wife reportedly spent EUR 40,000 in one hour's worth of shopping this week. But at the same time she goes off buying that luxury stuff, her husband is busy suppressing journalists, supporting the potential outlawing of a historic institution of Ukraine and of the practice of religious belief, after he dissolved a Kiev court that investigates corruption.
Perhaps none of that matters to you, but you cannot think simplistically and ignore the cognitive dissonance you become guilty of if you think the U.S. is helping Ukraine for its democracy when its ostensibly democratic leaders act like the petty little despots they are.
History is NEVER simple. Those who want it to be simple are those who do not like facts which if faced squarely would obligate them to rethink their positions.
I have never once said that history is simple. However, Russia is the one that invaded Ukraine. Whatever may have led up to it, Russia is responsible for what their army did. No one else is.
If the Ukraine is winning why do the Russians keep getting closer and closer to Bakhmut?
If the Ukraine is winning where is the much anticipated winter counteroffensive on Melitopol?
And if Ukraine is winning, why can't it stop the Russians from firing into Ukrainian territory?
Why hasn't Ukraine expelled Russian forces from the easternmost regions Russia officially annexed (in the same fashion Ukraine has done nothing to expel Russian forces from Crimea, which is rightfully Russian)?
And if Ukraine is winning, why can't it stop the Russians from firing into Ukrainian territory?
Why hasn't Ukraine expelled Russian forces from the easternmost regions Russia officially annexed (in the same fashion Ukraine has done nothing to expel Russian forces from Crimea, which is rightfully Russian)?
Being able to fire into another countries territories does not mean that country is winning or that the other country is losing. Ukraine has fired into Russia's territory. Does that mean that Russia is losing then?
I have never once said that history is simple. However, Russia is the one that invaded Ukraine. Whatever may have led up to it, Russia is responsible for what their army did. No one else is.
By your logic, Ukraine is responsible for what its own forces have done.
Ukrainian troops murdered more than 10,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbass since 2014. Moscow asked Kiev to stop this; Kiev refused.
Ukrainian forces have committed war crimes against surrendered Russian troops.
The blowback against Ukraine will not be pretty, even though much of Ukraine is already wrecked.
Remember: the U.S. spearheaded western support for Ukraine to join NATO in total disregard for Russian efforts to make Ukraine neutral. The U.S. and the west were not willing to consider Russia's geostrategic interests and were in support of an eventual Ukrainian entry into NATO, which would have meant NATO military assets stationed in Ukraine, thus meaning missiles aimed at Moscow and able to strike Moscow and other major Russian cities in minutes.
You never said history is simple, but your narrow focus on who started the fighting reflects a very simplistic understanding of history and of current events. By doing this, you seek to vilify Russia, to imply the Russians were in the wrong.
Being able to fire into another countries territories does not mean that country is winning or that the other country is losing. Ukraine has fired into Russia's territory. Does that mean that Russia is losing then?
I'd say it shows the Ukrainians are desperate. They can't stop the Russians from attacking Ukraine proper, and since Ukraine's leaders know they cannot possibly overrun Russia given the latter's enormity, they're doing this as a retaliatory measure but also in hopes of damaging Russia's capacity to wage war.
But if Ukraine is not losing, why can't it stop Russia from taking out its power plants? It isn't Russians in St. Petersburg, Volgograd, Moscow, or other Russian cities who aren't going to have hot water and electricity this winter. I certainly do not rejoice over any civilian center losing electricity, but if Ukraine is winning as so many posters here on this thread say and as the media has been harping from late February, then why isn't Ukraine able to stop these Russian strikes?
Even with missiles provided by the west, Russia is still striking Ukraine. Why?
By your logic, Ukraine is responsible for what its own forces have done.
Ukrainian troops murdered more than 10,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbass since 2014. Moscow asked Kiev to stop this; Kiev refused.
Ukrainian forces have committed war crimes against surrendered Russian troops.
The blowback against Ukraine will not be pretty, even though much of Ukraine is already wrecked.
Remember: the U.S. spearheaded western support for Ukraine to join NATO in total disregard for Russian efforts to make Ukraine neutral. The U.S. and the west were not willing to consider Russia's geostrategic interests and were in support of an eventual Ukrainian entry into NATO, which would have meant NATO military assets stationed in Ukraine, thus meaning missiles aimed at Moscow and able to strike Moscow and other major Russian cities in minutes.
You never said history is simple, but your narrow focus on who started the fighting reflects a very simplistic understanding of history and of current events. By doing this, you seek to vilify Russia, to imply the Russians were in the wrong.
They weren't. History shows this.
Not by my logic, by logic period. I have never said that Ukraine is blameless. Doesnt change the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine. Yet, you seem to deny that Russia did invade.
Not by my logic, by logic period. I have never said that Ukraine is blameless. Doesnt change the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine. Yet, you seem to deny that Russia did invade.
I deny history should be viewed with a simplistic mentality. You ignore all the factors and events which led up to the events of late February, which indicates yours is an extremely simple understanding of the facts at hand - yours is simply a message of "Russia is bad because they did this!"
Russia has acted with good reason in doing what it decided to do.
And again, you never said history is simple, but you need not say it. Your words point to a belief that history is simple.
...if Ukraine is winning as so many posters here on this thread say and as the media has been harping from late February, then why isn't Ukraine able to stop these Russian strikes?
V-2s didn't start hitting London until 1944. You do the logic as to whether that meant that the Allies were actually losing.
Love the discussion of recent and distant history and the discussion of, oh, how complicated it all is.
Pseudo intellectual analysts want us to believe it is just too complicated for those of us who lack their critical thinking skills, so they ask meaningless gotcha questions, like, "If Russia has already lost, why are they still fighting?"
Russia has lost and lost so much they can never regain what they once had. Germany lost long before they surrendered; The Confederacy lost long before they surrendered. In fact, I doubt there is anyone who can point to a date when any particular war was lost. But whatever the date was, Russia lost.
Told ya they would. George Friedman wrote about the breakup of the Russian Federation in 2005, without knowing the date of either this war or the Crimea invasion.
The Russia Mystery Fires continue. Evidently there are Ukrainian sympathizers in every portion of Russia and they are doing what they can to disrupt the Russian economy. There have been 53 such fires and explosions since March.
The price that Russia can get for its oil has halved since the war began. Shipping has been disrupted, customers lost and no help on the horizon, since Russian oil fields are so far from their potential customers. Oil shipped from St Petersburg to China means a 70 day round trip for an oil tanker. China is happy to get it, of course, since it comes at a huge discount.
Does anyone really believe Russia will win back their European market; reclaim their seized funds; rebuild their military; revive their economy?
Not I. Can't be done.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprawling_Homeowner
Chuckles.
Delusion much? Steady territorial advances much?
As it is.
Russia will win this war.
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.
