Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where Party of Trump stands on Russia/Ukraine:

    “So Putin is now saying it’s independent, a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force.”

    Fmr. President Donald Trump, February 2022 · Source

    “[Putin is] taking over a country for two dollars worth of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart.”

    Fmr. President Donald Trump, February 2022 · Source

    “Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug. Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and it is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.”

    Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), March 2022 · Source

    “NATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with powerful weapons and extensive training on how to use them. What the hell is going with these #NATONazis?”

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), March 2022 · Source

    “I think we should probably take the side of Russia, if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.”

    Tucker Carlson, FOX News, December 2019 · Source

    “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”

    J.D. Vance, US Senate Candidate, February 2022 · Source

    “Every American who wants to know what’s *actually* going on in Russia and Ukraine, read this transcript of Putin’s address…WE are at fault.”

    Candace Owens, Daily Wire, February 2022 · Source

    “No Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine. $0 for Ukraine.”

    Steve Bannon, March 2022 · Source

    “The Soviet Union back before Russia when it broke up contained all of Ukraine including Crimea. The country itself is not really a country”

    Peter Navarro, Former Trump WH Advisor, December 2021 · Source

    “I’m more concerned with the US-Mexico border than the Russia-Ukraine border. Not sorry.”

    Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), January 2022 · Source

    “It feels as if Putin is going into places that want him. They have voted overwhelmingly to be part of it. It is a family dispute that we shouldn’t get in the midst of, that’s for certain.”

    Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, February 2022 · Source

    “We had kind of a really pathetic display from the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.”

    Laura Ingraham, FOX News, February 2022 · Source

    “Putin–unlike someone else we know–LOVES his country & FIGHTS for its interests”

    Dinesh D’Souza, [convicted felon] September 2016 · Source

    “[Putin is] a very strong leader. He’s been in charge for a long time. And he’s not going to put up with the nonsense he’s seeing in Europe.”

    Mike Flynn, former Trump National Security Advisor, February 2022 · Source

    “Zelensky is a globalist puppet for Soros and the Clintons.”

    State Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-AZ), February 2022 · Source

    “I wish Putin was president of America.”

    Nick Fuentes, America First Political Action Conference, February 2022 · Source
    __________

    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • Arnold responds and appeals to the Russian people...

      https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/s...anada-60794809

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        Where Party of Trump stands on Russia/Ukraine:

        “So Putin is now saying it’s independent, a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force.”

        Fmr. President Donald Trump, February 2022 · Source

        “[Putin is] taking over a country for two dollars worth of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart.”

        Fmr. President Donald Trump, February 2022 · Source

        “Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug. Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and it is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.”

        Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), March 2022 · Source

        “NATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with powerful weapons and extensive training on how to use them. What the hell is going with these #NATONazis?”

        Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), March 2022 · Source

        “I think we should probably take the side of Russia, if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.”

        Tucker Carlson, FOX News, December 2019 · Source

        “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”

        J.D. Vance, US Senate Candidate, February 2022 · Source

        “Every American who wants to know what’s *actually* going on in Russia and Ukraine, read this transcript of Putin’s address…WE are at fault.”

        Candace Owens, Daily Wire, February 2022 · Source

        “No Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine. $0 for Ukraine.”

        Steve Bannon, March 2022 · Source

        “The Soviet Union back before Russia when it broke up contained all of Ukraine including Crimea. The country itself is not really a country”

        Peter Navarro, Former Trump WH Advisor, December 2021 · Source

        “I’m more concerned with the US-Mexico border than the Russia-Ukraine border. Not sorry.”

        Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), January 2022 · Source

        “It feels as if Putin is going into places that want him. They have voted overwhelmingly to be part of it. It is a family dispute that we shouldn’t get in the midst of, that’s for certain.”

        Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, February 2022 · Source

        “We had kind of a really pathetic display from the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.”

        Laura Ingraham, FOX News, February 2022 · Source

        “Putin–unlike someone else we know–LOVES his country & FIGHTS for its interests”

        Dinesh D’Souza, [convicted felon] September 2016 · Source

        “[Putin is] a very strong leader. He’s been in charge for a long time. And he’s not going to put up with the nonsense he’s seeing in Europe.”

        Mike Flynn, former Trump National Security Advisor, February 2022 · Source

        “Zelensky is a globalist puppet for Soros and the Clintons.”

        State Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-AZ), February 2022 · Source

        “I wish Putin was president of America.”

        Nick Fuentes, America First Political Action Conference, February 2022 · Source
        __________
        It's like a self flushing toilet which is backed up....
        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
        Mark Twain

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

          It's like a self flushing toilet which is backed up....
          Click image for larger version

Name:	mario-plumbing.gif
Views:	116
Size:	10.4 KB
ID:	1584104
          .
          .
          .

          Comment


          • ‘If Putin Gets Away With It Again, He’s Not Going to Stop’
            Marie Yovanovitch talks about the two years since her impeachment testimony, and what that Ukraine scandal has to do with the current conflict.

            It’s been more than two years since then-President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate in his first impeachment, a scandal that was set off by a phone call between Trump and the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, anxious about his country’s position in the crosshairs of an increasingly bellicose Vladimir Putin. We know how that call went: Zelenskyy wanted to buy more Javelin anti-tank missiles from the United States, and in exchange, Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden’s son’s activities in the country. Now, the invasion of Ukraine has made clear why Zelenskyy spent the rest of the call appeasing Trump, even agreeing with Trump’s unwarranted attacks on Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

            Now, Yovanovitch, whose firing was at the center of the first impeachment, might be the person with the most interesting insight into how we got from that moment to this one.“It was pretty clear to [Vladimir Putin] and pretty much everyone else that Trump didn’t really hold Ukraine in high regard,” she told me in an interview. “So I think if you’re President Putin, you’re getting much of what you need from a President Trump. When Trump lost the 2020 election, I think maybe Putin had to recalibrate and look for other means to achieve his goals.”

            Yovanovitch is out with a new book, Lessons from the Edge: A Memoir, about her three-decade-long career as a foreign service officer. She says she began writing it when Covid-19 upended everyone’s routines in early 2020, but she probably couldn’t have guessed that two years later, her experience in Ukraine would be urgent and valuable for an entirely new reason. I called her to discuss the new book, what she saw during her time in Ukraine that has made her think of the current conflict differently and how the impeachment has affected her life. “I’ve had a long career and I’ve done a lot of things throughout my life, some of which I’m proud of,” she said, “and I will always be remembered as the person who was fired by Trump.”

            This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

            Katelyn Fossett: What has surprised you about the way the conflict in Ukraine has played out in recent weeks?

            Marie Yovanovitch: I’m surprised by the performance of the Russian military. I had expected them to be more competent, and we’re not seeing that. I am not completely surprised, but I am heartened, by the international unity led by the U.S. and President Biden. I think it’s really important that we maintain a united front to support Ukraine and hold Russia accountable. And I think we’re doing a good job of that, although more needs to be done. And I guess the third thing is, having lived in Ukraine for six years, obviously I know the Ukrainian people and know that they would resist this. But they have done that with success and with the spirit that has not only held that country together and pushed back on the Russians in meaningful ways but also inspired the world. And I think that is a little bit surprising and deeply satisfying.

            Fossett: As you’re watching, have you been thinking about how any of the issues surrounding your removal and the hold on aid and the first Trump impeachment are relevant to what is happening?

            Yovanovitch: Well, I think the “perfect” phone call revealed that Trump personally was ready to trade our national security interests for a personal favor.

            To the point of your question, I think that phone conversation where he was using Ukraine as a pawn for his own personal goals, he signaled to bad actors everywhere, including to Putin, that you can make unsavory deals with Trump, and that you can find a way to get him to say yes if you appeal to his vanity, his pocketbook or his personal needs in one way or another. And I think that disdain for Ukraine really kind of emboldened Putin. I mean, during the Trump administration, I think Putin was getting what he wanted: While U.S. official policy was strong, it was pretty clear to him and pretty much everyone else that Trump didn’t really hold Ukraine in high regard, to the extent that he even thought about Ukraine. Trump made clear his disdain for NATO and some of the allies. So I think if you’re President Putin, you’re getting much of what you need from a President Trump. When Trump lost the 2020 election, I think maybe Putin had to recalibrate and look for other means to achieve his goals.

            Fossett: And do you think there is something that the U.S. could have or should have done differently to head off what we’re seeing now?

            Yovanovitch: Well, I think, you know, in retrospect, I think many in the foreign policy community had wanted to provide Javelins to Ukraine much earlier. And I think we probably should have, and we should have strengthened and bolstered the train-and-equip program we had in Ukraine.

            Fossett: Did you ever meet Zelenskyy during your time in Ukraine?

            Yovanovitch: I met him a number of times before he was a candidate and then when he was a candidate for president. And that would have been in the fall of 2018, and in the winter or early spring of 2019, right before he became president.

            Fossett: What was your impression of him? And what do you think the Ukrainians saw in him that a lot of other people, who saw him as an unserious candidate or ill-suited to the job, didn’t?

            Yovanovitch: He is obviously a funny guy — he’s a hugely successful comedian — but in the first meeting I had with him, he was eager to present himself as a businessperson, as somebody who had built a multimillion-dollar entertainment conglomerate that was immensely successful, not just in Ukraine, but throughout the Russian-speaking world, including Russia, Israel and other places. He was a really successful and beloved entertainer, and he was trusted by the Ukrainian people. And I think the reason that he wanted to share that with Americans was he wanted to let us know that he has executive skills.

            Moreover, he was running on a pretty simple platform, and it was getting control of corruption and bringing peace to Ukraine. And that really resonated with the Ukrainian people.

            Ukrainians wanted the rule of law, and while Ukraine made significant progress in reform and anti-corruption efforts after the 2014 Revolution of Dignity — that term means rule of law, by the way, that there is one law for all people — as always, things go in fits and starts, and things slow down a little. People were frustrated. And so they went to the protest candidate, and that was Zelenskyy. And he won. In the second round of elections, which has the top two contenders from the first round, he got something like 73 percent of votes.

            Historically, since independence in Ukraine, the vote has been divided between east and west. In this election, Zelenskyy won a majority in every single oblast. So it was really remarkable; he was not the eastern candidate or the western candidate. He was Ukraine’s candidate.

            Every president struggles with challenges. And Zelenskyy is no exception. But the man has met the moment; he has really emerged as a wartime president. At the critical moment in this country’s history, not only uniting Ukrainians, but inspiring a world.

            Fossett: Have you have you thought at all about the transformation of U.S. or Western attitudes toward Ukraine? We really saw this during the impeachment, but Ukraine has often been seen as this deeply corrupt place. And now, you know, it’s the avatar of democracy. A lot of people are cheering the country on. I’m wondering what you make of that shift.

            Yovanovitch: Well, it was never the most corrupt country in the world.Did Ukraine have a pretty serious corruption problem? Yes, it did, like pretty much every country in the former Soviet Union, including Russia, although of course, there, you can’t talk about. I think part of the reason that we focus on that corruption here in the west is because the Ukrainians themselves are talking about it. In 2014, they said, “Enough. We want to end corruption; we want rule of law.” And that opened the whole discussion and made it possible for the change to take place.

            So on one hand, they should get great credit for that. But they’re also being stigmatized as this very corrupt country because they’re trying to do something about it. It’s really ironic to me. And, regarding the democracy part of your question, I mean, Ukrainians, they are freedom-loving people. [Laughs.] That’s the only way to put it; they always have been, and they voted for independence with well over 90 percent of the vote back in 1991. They don’t want us to tell them what to do, and they certainly don’t want Russia to tell them what to do. They’re kind of unruly and they’re going to forge their own path. And that path is for freedom, to be their own country and to live by the rule of law in a liberal democracy.

            I don’t think most Ukrainians would use those terms, just as most Americans wouldn’t, either. But they want good jobs for themselves, a future for their kids and they want to be treated with dignity. And they started looking West, because if you look East to the Russian model, you really don’t get any of those things. It’s kind of a bankrupt model.

            Fossett: Do you think there is a fitting historical parallel for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine?

            Yovanovitch: Russia is a historically expansionist country, and if you look at the map over time, it keeps on pushing out, creating more space between its capital Moscow and any border areas. When we look at Putin’s rule, first of all, there’s the brutality of Chechnya and Syria. But there’s also nibbling off parts of Georgia in 2008 and then Ukraine in 2014, when he illegally annexed Crimea and invaded parts of the Donbas area as well. And he got away with all of that. There was some criticism in 2014, and there were some sanctions. But he got away with it. And so now he’s doing it again. And I think that what we need to understand is that if he gets away with it again, he’s not going to stop.

            Fossett: So what do you think the appropriate U.S. response is?

            Yovanovitch: The first thing I would say is, I think the Biden administration is doing a really good job of keeping allies and partners united, working closely with Ukraine and piling on the sanctions. Sanctions generally take a long time to work, but you can see there’s immediate pain in Russian society. It’s very sad for the Russian people, but hopefully at some point it will be persuasive to Vladimir Putin. So I think that’s all good, as well as flowing arms and equipment to Ukraine at hyperspeed; things that usually take months, if not years, to move through the system. It’s been weeks, even less in some cases, and that is really impressive. But I think we still need to do more.

            I think we can’t take items off the table. I think we need to look really hard at what kind of defensive systems we can be providing Ukraine. I mean, obviously Ukraine would love us to join the fight with American boots on the ground. But they have said, “If you can’t do that, just give us the equipment and we will fight this fight and we’ll fight it for you, too, because this is about democracy versus tyranny.” I think we need to keep on sending in support as quickly as we can, because we’ve seen over the last day or so Russia has started to attack the western side of Ukraine.

            To put maybe a finer point on it, we can’t let Putin set the conditions for this war. Russia is the aggressor. They have invaded a peaceful nation, and that is simply wrong. And what history has shown us is that if we don’t push back, Russia will keep on going.

            The bottom line is if this fight is our fight — because that’s something else we often hear, and something I happen to believe to be true — and it’s a struggle between freedom and tyranny, then our actions need to more closely match that rhetoric. Rhetoric is good, but I think we need to keep on looking for what more we can do as conditions on the ground change and as more people are murdered.

            Fossett: How did the impeachment testimony affect your life?

            Yovanovitch: I’ve had a long career and I’ve done a lot of things throughout my life, some of which I’m proud of, and I will always be remembered as the person who was fired by Trump, or the ousted ambassador. There were many headlines about it. And I’d like to be remembered for my career and the positive impact that I had in the countries where I served and on U.S. foreign policy.

            Fossett: Do you think that this current conflict between Russia and Ukraine would have happened without a President Trump?

            Yovanovitch: It’s really hard to know. I do think that Putin has an obsession with Ukraine. But I also, you know, when I was serving in Ukraine, the second time as ambassador, I never really thought that Putin wanted to, quote, “own” Ukraine. Because if you invade a country and take it over, you have to provide services and you’ve got to govern in some way, even if you’re a dictator. And that would mean resources that would be taken away from the Russian people and the development of Russia — assuming, of course, that you think Putin cares about that sort of thing — but it’s diverting resources to something else.

            And I thought he had gotten what he wanted by just maintaining this low-level war in the Donbas, which didn’t garner headlines in the West. But every week, a couple of Ukrainian soldiers or civilians died in the country; I mean, that’s a hot war right in the middle of Europe. And it was destabilizing. Add to that a campaign of assassinations against senior level Ukrainian officials, disinformation and multiple cyber-attacks. Putin was doing a pretty good job of destabilizing Ukraine and making it hard to govern. And I had thought that was enough, but apparently not.

            I do think that when Zelenskyy was elected, that Putin thought that he could run circles around Zelenskyy. And that turned out not to be true. As Russia squeezed Zelenskyy a little bit more, Zelenskyy became much more pro-West than he had been when he entered office, culminating in wanting to join the EU and join NATO. And so that wasn’t working the way Putin had wanted. So I think there are a variety of factors, and I think it’s hard to answer a hypothetical.

            Fossett: Is there anything about how those events played out in 2019, from your removal through the impeachment, that you still have questions about or you feel like you haven’t gotten answers to?

            Yovanovitch: You know, I think there are a lot of issues, because with every book that comes out, we’re finding out more about the Trump years. When it was all happening to me, it wasn’t like anybody was coming to me and explaining what was happening. There was this general swirl of all the rumors and Ukrainian officials coming to me quietly saying, “You have to watch your back ... Rudy Giuliani and Yuriy Lutsenko [then the Ukrainian prosecutor-general] have hooked up, and they are going to hurt you.” But when I would call back to Washington and say, “What’s going on? Are there concerns? Do I need to do something differently?,” everyone was like, “Oh no, everything’s fine!” In Washington, there are rumors, but you kind of have to just put that aside and you keep on doing the work. So I expect there will be more details forthcoming.
            ________
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • If Putin is allowed to win there it is Hello Baltic States, I'm here. Tiny countries even if NATO. Sanctions may have to be for the long haul or Putin has a heart attack soon.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                If Putin is allowed to win there it is Hello Baltic States, I'm here. Tiny countries even if NATO.
                There are 3 NATO BGs in the Baltic States. Plus each of the Baltic States can field 1 Bde each. Poland right next door has another NATO BG while she can field 14 Bdes. I don't think the Baltic States have anything to worry about for at least 3 years. Not until Putin can grab a hold of his own Zukhov.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  There are 3 NATO BGs in the Baltic States. Plus each of the Baltic States can field 1 Bde each. Poland right next door has another NATO BG while she can field 14 Bdes. I don't think the Baltic States have anything to worry about for at least 3 years. Not until Putin can grab a hold of his own Zukhov.
                  Oh, I do understand that. Germany also has five warships at Latvia right now but they won't be there for half a decade which I think might be Putin's time line.

                  However, at this time no one understands Putin nor what he might do especially if he got a win in Ukraine. Our logic and his logic clearly are different that no one can know where his dark rabbit hole goes. Unless he keeps logs of his thinking we may never know the who, what, when, and why of this whole mess and what he was trying to achieve.

                  Comment


                  • Assuming we have a parity of forces (which is nowhere near the case right now. A Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group at this moment can smash a Russian Combined Arms Army.), nine Bdes in the Baltics is enough to switch the calculus. The Russians would still win but at the expense of other theatres. They would win the Battle of the Baltics only to lose the war elsewhere. There is only one way to protect the Baltics and that is to invade Russia herself and take Kalingrad.

                    And this is before we talk full mobilization in which case, our RES is much bigger than their RES.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • after this fight is over, it'll be minimum 10 years before the Russian army can recapitalize, assuming the Chinese don't go full circle and just give the Russkis a bunch of hand-me-downs.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Assuming we have a parity of forces (which is nowhere near the case right now. A Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group at this moment can smash a Russian Combined Arms Army.), nine Bdes in the Baltics is enough to switch the calculus. The Russians would still win but at the expense of other theatres. They would win the Battle of the Baltics only to lose the war elsewhere. There is only one way to protect the Baltics and that is to invade Russia herself and take Kalingrad.

                        And this is before we talk full mobilization in which case, our RES is much bigger than their RES.
                        A layman's question for you Colonel: On paper there seems to be a fairly large manpower difference between these two---what are some of the main factors that give the Canadian Mechanized Brigade (or another corresponding US/NATO country equivalent) the capability to smash a larger Russian CAA? From a layman's standpoint I can see NATO's overall greater proficiency with combined arms operations and more sophisticated technologies playing a role, but I have had a hard time finding resources providing direct comparisons of capability between the two.
                        "Draft beer, not people."

                        Comment


                        • Basically, the Russians gave me the reccee battle. The Reccee Battle - Find the Enemy. Blind the Enemy. The Russians are sticking to the roads. They're not going off road. I want to find the CAA HQ. Follow the road back to where their HQ are. I stay off road and the Russians obliged me by not looking for me. From that point on, I can plan my attacks and ambushes as I see fit, anything from off road flank attack to their HQ and their protection force (ie, their reserves).

                          And because they're sticking to the roads, I can flank their axis of advance and wait until they come into my KZ without me having to channel them in via earthworks or minefields.

                          Hell, just cratering the road stops their advance.
                          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 22 Mar 22,, 07:19.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            after this fight is over, it'll be minimum 10 years before the Russian army can recapitalize, assuming the Chinese don't go full circle and just give the Russkis a bunch of hand-me-downs.
                            I wouldn't go that far. It took Stalin less than a year to stop Hitler and then another year to reach parity before taking the lead once and for all at Stalingrad. Putin needs an industrial General along the lines of Grant, Montgomery, Slim, MacArthur, Bradley, Chuikoiv and Zhukov. Strategists with a logisitician mindset. Get there the firstest with the mostest. In other words, soldiers who can do math.

                            Actually, I take that back, Putin needs to get rid of his yes-men.
                            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 22 Mar 22,, 06:04.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              There are 3 NATO BGs in the Baltic States. Plus each of the Baltic States can field 1 Bde each. Poland right next door has another NATO BG while she can field 14 Bdes. I don't think the Baltic States have anything to worry about for at least 3 years. Not until Putin can grab a hold of his own Zukhov.
                              Small point but there are 2 brigade combat teams in Poland...one from the 82nd Airborne and one from the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized).

                              But I get your point.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • I wouldn't go that far. It took Stalin less than a year to stop Hitler and then another year to reach parity before taking the lead once and for all at Stalingrad. Putin needs an industrial General along the lines of Grant, Montgomery, Slim, MacArthur, Bradley, Chuikoiv and Zhukov. Strategists with a logisitician mindset. Get there the firstest with the mostest. In other words, soldiers who can do math.

                                Actually, I take that back, Putin needs to get rid of his yes-men.
                                well, not just that -- Deep Battle could only happen because of American trucks and American fuel and American aircraft and last but not least, American SPAM. the Russians have got a whole bunch of old tanks in storage but all the other less sexy stuff, well, maybe not so much.

                                long-term, now that Russia's money is getting choked off in a process that will likely escalate, rebuilding all of this will be at least twice as long and twice as expensive.

                                Actually, I take that back, Putin needs to get rid of his yes-men.
                                the guy who does this...probably ain't gonna do that.
                                Attached Files
                                Last edited by astralis; 22 Mar 22,, 16:01.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X