Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians

OK but I wouldn't really regard my self as 'the establishment'. In general I take a case by case approach to international conflicts. Just because the 'establishment ' (whoever that is) supports involvement in or support for one particular war doesn't mean I automatically agree with 'them'. This specific war is just one particular case where, after considering all the available facts I am in support of western intervention.

 

You may in fact take a case by case approach, but in this particular case, there is no daylight between your position and the establishment position

 

To the extent I am siding with the 'establishment' (whoever they are) that doesn't automatically make either of us wrong - in this instance. And in any event as per you statement 'Apparently the establishment that's supported this war is prepared to say that Ukraine won no matter how badly it loses.' All I can add is that your statement is only true if everybody arbitrarily decides to accept your definition of 'victory' as being the only legitimate one. Don't hold your breath waiting. There are victories and then there are pyrrhic victories. No guesses which one Russia as won even using your definition.

 

Just curious if there is any military aggression by the US since 1944 you have NOT supported?

 

You've got that exactly backwards. My definition of victory is the traditional one. Yours is the new expanded version in which we consider long term effects decades later, so the establishment, in order to look like they were right all along, would accept your definition that even if the war ends with chunks of Ukraine going to Russia, Ukraine is the real winner because eventually something something EU in the future.

 

To quote Captain Michael Anderson. 'To know if one has won, one must know what the goal was.' And thus? No, because Russia gold, blood, international standing 'something something' toilet. Already!

 

OK but as per my general of reasoning so far in this thread the issue is a more complex than just 'support' or 'not support' and not every war the US got involved in was for the purpose of 'aggression' as you call it.

So in rough order and disregarding 'wars' like Grenada (because WTF?) and including a 'get in get out fast' exception:
- Korea. Yes. (Because South Korea is not North Korea and it would be otherwise);
- Vietnam. Yes. (Up to about 1964/65) After that? No. (Several times over as the war progresses from there. ) Get in get out.
- Lebanon. No. (Because even the Lebanese wouldn't invade Lebanon if they had a choice).
- First Gulf. Yes (Could have ended the Hussein Regime then but get in and get out because... see next entry);
- 2nd Gulf War, No;
- Somalia. No;
- Bosnia. Yes; and
- Afghanistan. Both yes and no. (If the aim was just to get Bin Laden then get out? Yes. Anything more?? No. (Get in, get out);

 

Yugoslavia? Syria?

Just disregarding?

 

No. 'Bosnia' includes the rest of the breakup 'Bill'. Syria? I'm currently undecided.

 

Libya? That was France, and the US in NATO.
Great entertainment for blood thirsty Hillary.

 

So you're undecided about Syria? I'll let you slide on the absurd Bosnia comment.

Let me help you decide. The US is still in Syria. Illegally. Violating the sovereignty of a country that actually has elections (as opposed to ukraine). The US controls 1/3 of Syria and is stealing oil. The US armed terrorists in Syria for an attempted regime change (the regular M.O. of the CIA - see ukraine, see Chechnya).

Let Syria be Syria and let the Syrians handle their own troubles. Syria is no threat to the US or any other western country. In other words, it's long past time to mind our own damn business. Sealing our own border comes to mind.

If Syria was illegally occupying the US and stealing oil in Texas for example, would you be okay with that? If Syria was arming Antifa?

 

Firstly Billy Bosnia was formerly part of the former Republic of Yugoslavia and I since I wasn't going to unpick the tangle of hostilities the break-up of that former State evolved into in one brief response to someone else's post my comment was simply a shorthand response. So lets just leave the pedantry behind for a bit shall we. I know that's asking a lot of you Bill but just try this once shall we?

Secondly it's the Kurd's Bill, the Kurds! Their the ones 'stealing' the oil as you put it from the parts of Syria they control. Not the US. And the country is in the state it's in because of a civil war not the direct invention of the US. This is because as much as successive US Governments have detested the totalitarian Ba'ath State it wasn't in the the US interests to make Syria fall over and become another failed State in the Middle East! Unfortunately the Assad managed to make that happen all on his own. That's what happens Bill when your own people detest you enough and finally reach breaking point. The US only became involved after it all turned to ****.

The thing is though Russia also intervened after that happened and tried to 'help' (for want of language the moderators won't permit) Syria. Mostly that seems to have involved launching Mig 29s into the ocean off the deck of its one and only 'state of the art ' cold war surplus aircraft carrier and sending in Russian mercenaries in to kill women and children but Russia isn't responsible for the collapse either. So there you go, Syria's collapse was all on Assad and his cronies.

 

Wow you're a regular purveyor of propaganda.

The Kurds are only in Syria because the US allowed them to enter. The US controls all that territory, not the Kurds. And for you to put this off on the Kurds is LAUGHABLE.

The civil war in Syria is because of US intervention. And it's not a coincidence the civil war in ukraine happened at the same time.

Russia was invited. The reason Syria is still (somewhat) intact is because of Russia.

Kurds.... comedic gold

 

Another warship became an underwater submarine Bill....Sergei Kotov?.....100+ didn't make it.....how's this possible?....

 

Look at a map he says

yeah, let's.....SOURCE CIA



Setting aside it's a CIA imagined map, here is what the US controls aka let the Kurds in to steal the oil:



Wow, those Kurds seemed to have taken over 5x what your CIA map even shows.



So the Kurds have ruled everything North of the Euphrates for centuries? They must have developed and built all that O&G infrastructure as well

 

Israelis hit Syrian targets with impunity Bill....what's the point of those S400s if they can't engage IAF F22/35s Bill....if I were Bashar El Assad...I would be supremely pi$$Ed at his BFF Putinka....don't ya think?

What use is that Tartus base somewhere in the north there....must be a great winter getaway for those RuZzian conscripts anyway?....

 

Bill, Bill, Bill. Look at the map in the link below.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440

So the US. 'let the Kurds in' did they? For your information the Kurdish have lived in what is now Syria for centuries. In fact prior to the start of the civil war more than two and half million Kurds lived in Syria, mostly in the north. Those are the historical facts Bill. The rest of your statement ? Prove it. Prove any of it. That or shift it to the conspiracy section.

 

Ukraine's running out of troops. Who could possibly have foreseen this?

Zelensky in bind over how to draft more troops as Russian forces advance

KYIV — Even as he promises international partners that Ukraine will handle the fighting if given needed weapons and other support, President Volodymyr Zelensky and his top military commanders have failed so far to come up with a clear plan to conscript or recruit many thousands of new soldiers critically needed to defend against Russia’s continuing attacks.

...Syrsky has been tasked with auditing the existing armed forces to find more combat-eligible troops, after Zelensky’s office recently announced that of the 1 million people who have been mobilized, only about 300,000 have fought at the front lines. But nearly a month after his promotion, no one in the military leadership or the presidential administration has explained where those 700,000 are — or what they have been doing.

...Ukraine’s dwindling number of battle-ready troops is now a strategic crisis that was at least partially to blame for its recent retreat from the eastern city of Avdiivka and surrounding villages, where Ukrainian forces were far outnumbered.

 

If you read the news Mike, there is absolutely no problem at all.

Firstly the Ukraine Army chased the ill-equipped low morale Russian forces out
of half of the ill-eagle occupied areas of the Sovereign Righteous Nation of
Ukraine in just a few weeks, and will clear out the rest in just a few weeks.

And 15 Russian troops die for each Ukrainian killed or injured.
And 15 Russian aircraft fall out of the sky each day due to faulty welds
and such, and that's the only reason Ukrainian soldiers wear helmets.

I saw some footage back in 2022 of the Russians crossing the border
out of NE Ukraine back into Russia. The only reason there are allegedly
still Russians in Ukraine is because their GPS signals have been spoofed.

Zelenskyy and Biden will be next to get a Nobel Prize for bringing a peaceful
settlement to the conflict in Ukraine without loss of life.

(I hope I don't wake up)

 

NO way ! - The next Nobel goes to Netanyahu.
For sending trucks full of flour into a Gaza Camp full of desperate Starving Refugees
and backing those trucks up with Tanks and a heavily armed, HATE inspired Infantry

 

Breaking news:
Exclusive: Russia producing three times more artillery shells than US and Europe for Ukraine

Russia appears on track to produce nearly three times more artillery munitions than the US and Europe, a key advantage ahead of what is expected to be another Russian offensive in Ukraine later this year.

Russia is producing about 250,000 artillery munitions per month, or about 3 million a year, according to NATO intelligence estimates of Russian defense production shared with CNN, as well as sources familiar with Western efforts to arm Ukraine. Collectively, the US and Europe have the capacity to generate only about 1.2 million munitions annually to send to Kyiv, a senior European intelligence official told CNN.

 

Splendid news....

.....but unfortunately.....they have nobody left to fire them....

 

I thought there were those Cuban and Nepalese mercs?...

 

So it's Russia, not Ukraine, that's running low on troops/

Your military analysis is as astute as ever.

 

Bombs aren’t free, EU tells Zelensky
The bloc promised to supply Ukraine with artillery rounds but never said they would be given away, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton has said

Ukraine should not expect the EU to supply it with 1 million artillery rounds “for free,” the bloc’s commissioner for the internal market, Thierry Breton, told the broadcaster France Info on Monday. He also criticized President Vladimir Zelensky for “falsely” accusing the bloc of failing to deliver on its promises.

Last week, Zelensky complained that the EU would miss the target of 520,000 artillery shells that it was supposedly expected to supply to Kiev by March. “Of the million shells that the European Union promised us, not 50% came, but 30%, unfortunately,” he said.

Asked about the statement on Monday, Breton brushed Zelensky’s comment off as “false.” The figures cited by Zelensky do not correspond to reality, he said, adding that Kiev expected all the promised shells to be “donated,” but that had never been the case.

“I said: ‘provide’ and not ‘give away for free’,” Breton told France Info about the pledge made by Brussels last year. He said the bloc expected Ukraine to pay for at least a portion of the supplies.