5 ms·

Factcheck your claims. Iraq WMD[0] were moved from Iraq to Syria by air bridge[1], where they are used frequently[2]. USA spent lot of effort to strip Ukraine

Factcheck your claims. Iraq WMD[0] were moved from Iraq to Syria by air bridge[1], where they are used frequently[2]. USA spent lot of effort to strip Ukraine from nuclear weapons and other military tech which can be used to harm USA, see Budapest memorandum. Just year ago, USA predicted that Ukraine will fall in two weeks, but Ukraine refused to comply with that. [0]: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm [1]: https://www.foxnews.com/story/exclusive-former-top-military-aide-to-saddam-reveals-dictators-secret-plans https://www.foxnews.com/story/exclusive-former-top-military-... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399

EGreg 4y ago
You're right. Both USA and Russia had terribly miscalculated, while they were both arming terrorists and ramping up the proxy war in Ukraine. If Russia attacked Ukraine's capital the way USA attacked Iraq and other countries ("shock and awe" and carpet bombing) then yes they would have surrendered. Russia did this in Syria (Aleppo, Homs) and Chechnya (Grozny) where the entire city was razed to the ground. There, they were fighting anti-government forces, and just like in Afghanistan etc. they were very brutal. Russia's goal in Ukraine seems to have been very different. They wanted a repeat of this war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War It had all the same elements: NATO welcoming Georgia, two breakaway republics who wanted independence, Russia intervening on their behalf, Russia sending a slow-moving convoy of tanks to the capitol to intimidate them and force them to agree to stop shelling these breakaway regions forever. (Russia of course would station peacekeepers there to make sure of that, and also to protect their black sea fleet / military interests). The difference is, in that war, they reached an agreement in a week, and the war was over. Nicolas Sarkozy helped make that happen. This time around, Ukraine was too far into NATO + CIA arming and training their army and irregulars (far-right batallions) all over the country, for it to have ended that way. Russia had hoped that it would all be over by the time the tanks reached Kyiv. But that never happened. Here is a lot of evidence for this: 1) Russia already had done this exact thing with Georgia. It's more reasonable to expect them to want to do the same thing and expect a similar result. After the agreement, Russia never went further to take over all of Georgia nor since 2008 went beyond stationing peacekeepers in the breakaway republics, so all the breathless claims that if peace agreement is reached, Russia will continue invading Europe, seem to be totally contradicted in the case of Georgia. 2) All military experts were baffled why Russia didn't use its air superiority to decisively win in a few days https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-happened-russias-air-force-us-officials-experts-stumped-2022-03-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-happened-russias-a... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lack-of-air-superiority-baffles-experts-mdq9hxljg https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lack-of-air-superiority-b... https://www.timesofisrael.com/western-experts-baffled-by-russian-air-forces-low-profile-in-ukraine/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/western-experts-baffled-by-rus... 3) Russia sent "only" 150,000 troops in, no way they can hold an entire country after regime change 4) USA and UK killed the peace deal according to the peacemakers themselves (Bennett playing the role of Sarcozy) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs 5) There are even further speculations from people I interviewed, like Chomsky, that may or may not be true: https://www.eurasiareview.com/19092022-is-zelensky-afraid-of-far-right-chomsky-says-his-peace-platform-should-be-made-publicfor-the-first-time-oped/ https://www.eurasiareview.com/19092022-is-zelensky-afraid-of...
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  They badly miscalculated, yes, but even if they hadn't -- doing a Desert Storm was never an option. Two primary reasons. If Russia attacked Ukraine's capital the way USA attacked Iraq and other countries ("shock and awe" and carpet bombing) then yes they would have surrendered. One: Russia never had the option of carrying out that sort of attack because they have repeatedly demonstrated that their military isn't capable of carrying out those sorts of ultra high tempo, synchronized, combined arms operations. Russia has some modern toys, but their ability to actually conduct a war is essentially WWII (if not WWI) era attacks with artillery and human waves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms Two: Anti-tank and anti-aircraft defenses are more potent and more plentiful than they were in the conflicts you named. I'm not even sure that the US could pull a Desert Storm these days in an era of S300/S400 air defenses and anti-tank Javelins. This time around, Ukraine was too far into NATO + CIA arming and training their army and irregulars (far-right batallions) all over the country, for it to have ended that way. Russia had hoped that it would all be over by the time the tanks reached Kyiv. But that never happened. I don't know that we need conspiracy thinking here. After Georgia and Crimea it wasn't exactly rocket science to see that Putin was going to keep snatching up territory every few years. Yes, NATO attempted appeasement in the past... it clearly. did. not. work. NATO needed to draw a line in the sand, and Ukraine was willing to fight. I'm also curious about this statement: Both USA and Russia had terribly miscalculated How has the USA miscalculated? They have a partner in Ukraine who is willing to fight like a demon to hold back Putin and dissuade him from attempting more of this in the future. All NATO has to do is send toys and money. The strategic value NATO is getting here is tremendous, and most of the world seems to think that stopping Putin is a just cause. All military experts were baffled why Russia didn't use its air superiority to decisively win in a few days Really? Not the ones I follow. This is pretty cut and dried. Air superiority against Ukraine's air defenses would require some really hellacious SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) operations and a willingness to sustain some shocking and expensive (by modern standards) losses of fighter aircraft. Russia has the ability to do neither of those things. They don't have stealthy aircraft, they don't have a lot of aircraft in general, and they can't afford those losses. I'm actually surprised that anybody would be surprised.

EGreg 4y ago

You're right. Both USA and Russia had terribly miscalculated, while they were both arming terrorists and ramping up the proxy war in Ukraine. If Russia attacked Ukraine's capital the way USA attacked Iraq and other countries ("shock and awe" and carpet bombing) then yes they would have surrendered. Russia did this in Syria (Aleppo, Homs) and Chechnya (Grozny) where the entire city was razed to the ground. There, they were fighting anti-government forces, and just like in Afghanistan etc. they were very brutal. Russia's goal in Ukraine seems to have been very different. They wanted a repeat of this war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War It had all the same elements: NATO welcoming Georgia, two breakaway republics who wanted independence, Russia intervening on their behalf, Russia sending a slow-moving convoy of tanks to the capitol to intimidate them and force them to agree to stop shelling these breakaway regions forever. (Russia of course would station peacekeepers there to make sure of that, and also to protect their black sea fleet / military interests). The difference is, in that war, they reached an agreement in a week, and the war was over. Nicolas Sarkozy helped make that happen. This time around, Ukraine was too far into NATO + CIA arming and training their army and irregulars (far-right batallions) all over the country, for it to have ended that way. Russia had hoped that it would all be over by the time the tanks reached Kyiv. But that never happened. Here is a lot of evidence for this: 1) Russia already had done this exact thing with Georgia. It's more reasonable to expect them to want to do the same thing and expect a similar result. After the agreement, Russia never went further to take over all of Georgia nor since 2008 went beyond stationing peacekeepers in the breakaway republics, so all the breathless claims that if peace agreement is reached, Russia will continue invading Europe, seem to be totally contradicted in the case of Georgia. 2) All military experts were baffled why Russia didn't use its air superiority to decisively win in a few days https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-happened-russias-air-force-us-officials-experts-stumped-2022-03-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-happened-russias-a... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lack-of-air-superiority-baffles-experts-mdq9hxljg https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lack-of-air-superiority-b... https://www.timesofisrael.com/western-experts-baffled-by-russian-air-forces-low-profile-in-ukraine/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/western-experts-baffled-by-rus... 3) Russia sent "only" 150,000 troops in, no way they can hold an entire country after regime change 4) USA and UK killed the peace deal according to the peacemakers themselves (Bennett playing the role of Sarcozy) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs 5) There are even further speculations from people I interviewed, like Chomsky, that may or may not be true: https://www.eurasiareview.com/19092022-is-zelensky-afraid-of-far-right-chomsky-says-his-peace-platform-should-be-made-publicfor-the-first-time-oped/ https://www.eurasiareview.com/19092022-is-zelensky-afraid-of...

JohnBooty 4y ago
They badly miscalculated, yes, but even if they hadn't -- doing a Desert Storm was never an option. Two primary reasons. If Russia attacked Ukraine's capital the way USA attacked Iraq and other countries ("shock and awe" and carpet bombing) then yes they would have surrendered. One: Russia never had the option of carrying out that sort of attack because they have repeatedly demonstrated that their military isn't capable of carrying out those sorts of ultra high tempo, synchronized, combined arms operations. Russia has some modern toys, but their ability to actually conduct a war is essentially WWII (if not WWI) era attacks with artillery and human waves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms Two: Anti-tank and anti-aircraft defenses are more potent and more plentiful than they were in the conflicts you named. I'm not even sure that the US could pull a Desert Storm these days in an era of S300/S400 air defenses and anti-tank Javelins. This time around, Ukraine was too far into NATO + CIA arming and training their army and irregulars (far-right batallions) all over the country, for it to have ended that way. Russia had hoped that it would all be over by the time the tanks reached Kyiv. But that never happened. I don't know that we need conspiracy thinking here. After Georgia and Crimea it wasn't exactly rocket science to see that Putin was going to keep snatching up territory every few years. Yes, NATO attempted appeasement in the past... it clearly. did. not. work. NATO needed to draw a line in the sand, and Ukraine was willing to fight. I'm also curious about this statement: Both USA and Russia had terribly miscalculated How has the USA miscalculated? They have a partner in Ukraine who is willing to fight like a demon to hold back Putin and dissuade him from attempting more of this in the future. All NATO has to do is send toys and money. The strategic value NATO is getting here is tremendous, and most of the world seems to think that stopping Putin is a just cause. All military experts were baffled why Russia didn't use its air superiority to decisively win in a few days Really? Not the ones I follow. This is pretty cut and dried. Air superiority against Ukraine's air defenses would require some really hellacious SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) operations and a willingness to sustain some shocking and expensive (by modern standards) losses of fighter aircraft. Russia has the ability to do neither of those things. They don't have stealthy aircraft, they don't have a lot of aircraft in general, and they can't afford those losses. I'm actually surprised that anybody would be surprised.