We’ll considering that they overthrew Saddam it was technically a strategic and military victoryAccording to your logic, Iraq war was a great success for Americans, because we didn´t see ordinary Americans running for their lives and their homes were not bombed by Saddam. Is that the point you are trying to make?
Ukies are ready to pay the price.. Right now, Killing Daria, or some Russians in bordering villages is the only way Ukraine can bring the war home to Russia.. But, it looks like Ukraine command has bigger plans to hit Russian core areas next year.
Sadam got replaced with a Iran sympathetic government in Iraq.. Yanks had hoped for a anti Iran Iraq, that would allow American elites to loot Iraqi resiurces dry. Instead, America got deep fried.We’ll considering that they overthrew Saddam it was technically a strategic and military victory
After the successful occupation of Germany, Japan and South Korea, American record at occupation and conversion into a pliant, proxy has faced continued setbacks... But, given American geography and its immense economic and military strength, these misadventures have left no lasting impact on America..Because America is a PhD in geostrategic failure
1) Then why are you against Bharat's neutrality in outside conflict.i have zero love for americunts .
like u say - India will take the middle path - will always do whats best in its interest.
as for this war , i rather this never happened . what Putin did was hand the US deep state a big gift . nothing good will come out of this for anyone.
If it's reciprocation, then Putin's talk about the parts of Ukraine of the so called NovoRossiya being Russian lands, which belong to Russia not Ukraine.. This rhetoric comes from Putin, Medvedev and all the other ruling elite.. A Russian victory increases Russian power in Europe, and weakens the EU as well as weaken American power in Europe.. The world moving towards multipolarity might be a side effect of Russian victory. But, the net gains to India itself would be minimal. Most of the gains will be Russia's..So hence the putin's behavior is reciprocation not aggression. This war was necessary for the multipolarity sake. It could have been avoided the war but ukrainians want this to be settled on battlefield so let it be that way.
Its over for europe.
What does BHARAT gain with a weakened russia? Talking about the parts enh?That was krushchev granted crimea as an act of respect for the ukrainians who fought against shietler. That is not russian problem if some of ukrainians started to believe that crimea was theirs.If it's reciprocation, then why the talk about the parts of Ukraine of the so called NovoRossiya being Russian lands, which belong to Russia not Ukraine.. This rhetoric comes from Putin, Medvedev and all the other ruling elite.. A Russian victory increases Russian power in Europe, and weakens the EU as well as weaken American power in Europe.. The world moving towards multipolarity might be a side effect of Russian victory. But, the net gains to India itself would be minimal. Most of the gains will be Russia's..
Russia for the past hundreds of years, has always expanded its territory when it has gathered sufficient strength.. Russia and most Russians are imperial by default.
NATO expansion towards the Russian border, only preponed the Ukraine Crisis and war.. Without NATO expansion, Russia would have tried to absorb Ukraine and Belarus in the 2030s or 2040s. NATO's imperial expansion just pre-poned it to 2014.
Let us put all the rhetoric of Multipolarity, Genocide aside, at its core, the Ukraine invasion by Russia is a war for Empire.
Declassified documents show security assurances against nato vaginal expansion to Soviet leaders from naker, bush, genscher, kohl, gates, mitterrand, thatcher, hurd, major, and Woerner. The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
So, do you say that NATO is the only one to blame for the Ukraine invasion of 2022. That, Russian desire for territorial expansion and reconquest has nothing to do with it ?What does BHARAT gain with a weakened russia? Talking about the parts enh?That was krushchev granted crimea as an act of respect for the ukrainians who fought against shietler. That is not russian problem if some of ukrainians started to believe that crimea was theirs.
Why do not you take time and go through the documents relevant in this regards?
Below is the link to original declassified documents.
View attachment 174598
[Page from Stepanov-Mamaladze's notes from February 12, 1990, reflecting Baker's assurance to Shevardnadze during the Ottawa Open Skies conference: "And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in nato, we should take care about non-expansion of its jurisdiction to the East." ]
Gobrachev and Kgb were assured multiple occasions especially by then cia director robert wrt “pressing ahead with expansion of nato eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.
See Robert Gates, University of Virginia, Miller Center Oral History, George H.W. Bush Presidency, July 24, 2000, p. 101)
For background, context, and consequences of the Tutzing speech, see Frank Elbe, “The Diplomatic Path to Germany Unity,” Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 46 (Spring 2010), pp. 33-46. Elbe was Genscher’s chief of staff at the time.
See Mark Kramer, “The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia,” The Washington Quarterly, April 2009, pp. 39-61.
See Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion,” International Security, Spring 2016, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 7-44.
See James Goldgeier, Not Whether But When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO (Brookings Institution Press, 1999); and James Goldgeier, “Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin was told about NATO in 1993 and why it matters,” War On The Rocks, July 12, 2016.
See also Svetlana Savranskaya, Thomas Blanton, and Vladislav Zubok, “Masterpieces of History”: The Peaceful End of the Cold War in Europe, 1989 (CEU Press, 2010), for extended discussion and documents on the early 1990 German unification negotiations.
Genscher told Baker on February 2, 1990, that under his plan, “NATO would not extend its territorial coverage to the area of the GDR nor anywhere else in Eastern Europe.” Secretary of State to US Embassy Bonn, “Baker-Genscher Meeting February 2,” George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Kanter Files, Box CF00775, Folder “Germany-March 1990.” Cited by Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion,” International Security, Spring 2016, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 7-44.
The previous version of this text said that Kohl was “caught up in a campaign finance corruption scandal that would end his political career”; however, that scandal did not erupt until 1999, after the September 1998 elections swept Kohl out of office. The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. H.H. Jansen for the correction and his careful reading of the posting.
See Andrei Grachev, Gorbachev’s Gamble (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2008), pp. 157-158.
For an insightful account of Bush's highly effective educational efforts with East European leaders including Havel – as well as allies – see Jeffrey A. Engel, When the World Seemed New: George H.W. Bush and the End of the Cold War (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017), pp. 353-359.
See George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (New York: Knopf, 1998), pp. 236, 243, 250.
Published in English for the first time in Savranskaya and Blanton, The Last Superpower Summits (2016), pp. 664-676.
Anatoly Chernyaev Diary, 1990, translated by Anna Melyakova and edited by Svetlana Savranskaya, pp. 41-42.
See Michael Nelson and Barbara A. Perry, 41: Inside the Presidency of George H.W. Bush (Cornell University Press, 2014), pp. 94-95.
The authors thank Josh Shifrinson for providing his copy of this document. The authors thank Josh Shifrinson for providing his copy of this document.
See Memorandum of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and John Major published in Mikhail Gorbachev, Sobranie Sochinenii, v. 24 (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2014), p. 346
See Rodric Braithwaite, “NATO enlargement: Assurances and misunderstandings,” European Council on Foreign Relations, Commentary, 7 July 2016.
Do you know who promised what to whom on nato expansion? If you had know this you had not ask that question. What was the gorbachev assured in that malta summit back then?So, do you say that NATO is the only one to blame for the Ukraine invasion of 2022. That, Russian desire for territorial expansion and reconquest has nothing to do with it ?
Putin is a genius, it was all part of the plan!Set backs in war happens. Nothing new.
Russia made a mistake by delaying mobilisation and assessing potential military hardware support by the West.
But the mobilisation is finally happening. New troops will get ample time to train as winter wars will be limited to few places only. In fact, retreat by RuA and its allies means the supply line will be shorter for winter when for Uktanians it will longer.
So I would caution about over elation about Ukraine successes right now.
The war is far from over. In fact, Russia now has to fight to save its face as they can't afford to let go of the annexed oblasts.
Sorry, I do not speak Qanon.That's because Trump till like about 2015, he was among the most well known, least racist, beloved global American celebrities, big time dem donor etc'. Had he run as a democrat, the Dems will be brandishing him as the next Lincoln for all the good he did. By running as Repub, he pissed off the estab. Also back in the day, he was touching everybody's pussy and they let him do it. Those lawsuits don't go far with Trump.
Ya'll Nibbers welcome to a leftist demorat here, I'll go first.
View attachment 174465
Kherson will be recovered, but I think the Ukraine offensive will be stopped after that. Then winter will come.I've lost count how many times I've been wrong. The latest being Lyman, I thought Russia would not lose it. I do know Lyman isn't even close to being as important as Kherson. The best summary is going to have to wait to be written, because it's happening now in Kherson. Russia can't lose Kherson, and Ukraine has to take it, but losing it would be a devastating blow to Russia's morale. So, once again we will have to wait and see, but if I was a ruthless military leader, I would use the entire Russian air force to stop this attack.
The good thing is that they get some of those loses back when the Russians run away leaving behind all kinds of equipment.I was just looking at the data on Ukrainian losses from July 11th thru August 18th. They had lost 588 armored vehicles, 278 artillery guns, 84 depots, and killed 24,795 and this is just from missile, artillery, and plane strikes. Not to mention 105 fuel and ammo depots. That's a five week total. In the last 7 weeks since then they lost an additional 37826 men dead/wounded, 2347 armored vehicles, 26 artillery guns, and 128 ammo/fuel depots destroyed. I double checked these numbers. I find it interesting Ukraine lost a staggering 2347 armored vehicles in just 7 weeks, but only 26 artillery guns. When you're on the attack, you lose a lot of tanks and armor, and not much artillery.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Russia Ukraine War 2022 - Idiotic musings||Europe and Russia||2|
|Lessons from Russia-NATO war in Ukraine (Non-Discussion thread)||Knowledge Repository||1|
|Ukraine's Poroshenko to teach NATO how to wage war against Russia!!!||Europe and Russia||6|
|Ukraine Preparing Massive Forces To Attack Donbass During FIFA Football World Cup In Russia||Europe and Russia||1|