Tom Peters wrote: ↑25 May 2023 21:11
ljadw wrote: ↑25 May 2023 08:24
1 It started as an unconventional war
Wrong.
ljadw wrote: ↑25 May 2023 08:24
;the Russians could have succeeded with less men and they can still win with smaller forces .
Wrong.
ljadw wrote: ↑25 May 2023 08:24
2 There is no reason for the West to give money to Ukraine as a defeat of Ukraine does not depend on the absence of Western help and as such a defeat does not endanger the interests of the European members of NATO
Wrong.
ljadw wrote: ↑25 May 2023 08:24
and thus also not the interests of the US .
100% Wrong. Impressive in its wrong-ness. A virtual symphony in wrong-osity.
Mad Dog
1 YES :it started as a non conventional war ,as the Russians knew that they could not conquer, occupy and pacify Ukraine ,to do this, they needed the collaboration of the Ukrainian people and their plan was to eliminate the Ukrainian leadership and to replace it by a local Quisling .
They attacked with 200000 men and could have succeeded with less than 200000 ,they have now more than 200000 men committed and still do not succeed .
2 Ukraine stopped the Russians without Abrams,without Amraads, without F16s ,etc ,thus these weapons are not decisive .
3 Where is the proof that the presence of pro Russian Ukrainian forces at the border with Poland ( Russian forces at the border with Poland is excluded and without importance ) constitute a danger for the interests of the US ?
The main reason why US and European countries at the order of the US ,have sent weapons to Ukraine (for their importance there is no proof ) is that this is good for the military-industrial complex that needs wars to make profits,for the people of Capitol Hill who receive a part of the money and for Biden ,as a war where US in involved is helping the reelection of a sitting president .
This was also one of the reasons for Lend Lease and the Marshall help .