Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine

[Tom Peters]

NO : the interventions from the US are not done because US interests are threatened and they do not make better US position . See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Syria,etc ..
The hidden reason is the belief of the Democrats and neocons that there is no peaceful coexistence possible between a liberal democracy and a dictatorship and that it is thus the duty of US to impose its political system on the rest of the world .The fact that they have failed,will not stop them .
Africa has rejected communism, so will it reject US democracy .This applies for the rest of the world .
As Harry, Adolf Barnes ( a Neonazi ,but even Neonazis say exceptionally something that is correct )said : if you want eternal peace, you will have eternal war .
The best foreign policy is not to interfere in the business of other countries: thus not to attack Putin because he is persecuting his enemies ,thus not to give money to the imbeciles of Amnesty International,and not to admit ''political ''refugees not to attack the conservative governments of Poland and Hungary .Only an imbecile as Woodrow Wilson could say that the US were fighting to make the world safe for democracy .
Tyranny is the normal thing, situation in the history of the world . Democracy is only an intermediate step .

Are you claiming isolationism is the best policy ? Really ? Not enter WW2 at all ?

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

Why is Putin in the wrong ? Starting a war is not putting him in the wrong. Saddam started also a war ,and what did Carter? He helped him .
And if his war is stupid,that is not our business .
Saying that one can not start a war is very ridiculous. Millions have been killed since WW2 and in most cases US did not stop a war ,or even started him

Are you telling us that Putin, starting a pointless war (if it wasnt pointless at the start it sure is now), is acceptable given Putin's own stated desires (rebuild the Soviet Union) ? Putin wants to annex entirely, or at least install a puppet government (aka: Lukashenko). The Ukrainians as a whole clearly do not want this.

The war is ground down to a stalemate. What justifies its continuation in your eyes ? Who benefits ?

Stop Putin now, prevent future occurances. We let Crimea slide and look where it got us.

Our exchanges are descending into political theory, while I suspect we both want the same thing: end the war in UKR.

Mad Dog

[Yuri]

Why is Putin in the wrong ? Starting a war is not putting him in the wrong. Saddam started also a war ,and what did Carter? He helped him .
And if his war is stupid,that is not our business .
Saying that one can not start a war is very ridiculous. Millions have been killed since WW2 and in most cases US did not stop a war ,or even started him

Are you telling us that Putin, starting a pointless war (if it wasnt pointless at the start it sure is now), is acceptable given Putin's own stated desires (rebuild the Soviet Union) ? Putin wants to annex entirely, or at least install a puppet government (aka: Lukashenko). The Ukrainians as a whole clearly do not want this.

The war is ground down to a stalemate. What justifies its continuation in your eyes ? Who benefits ?

Stop Putin now, prevent future occurances. We let Crimea slide and look where it got us.

Our exchanges are descending into political theory, while I suspect we both want the same thing: end the war in UKR.

Mad Dog

The Soviet Union is a union of states in which the Soviet system of power is established.
In the states that formed the Soviet Union (these are fifteen states), the exploitation of man by man was not allowed and, thus, there was no bourgeoisie as a class in the Soviet Union. Now in the Russian Federation, as well as in all the states of Europe and North America, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is rampant. In order to restore the Soviet Union, it is necessary to liquidate the bourgeoisie as a class in Russia and at least in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
In the Russian Federation, Putin is the main bourgeois.
Thus, it follows from your words that Putin wants to eliminate himself.
It's funny, don't you think?.

[Cult Icon]

The smart thing would have been to avoid restarting Cold War 2 at all costs and expanding the divide between East and West. I miss the days where Putin was talking about joining NATO and trying to make Russia look good at the Olympics. The more defense expenditures grow in Russia, US, and Europe, the worst things will get. In particular the Russian military has all the excuses to invest in further developing itself after this war. The depressed defense spending in Europe was a blessing for a long time, now Cold War 2 has opened a global loser's race.

[historygeek2021]

The smart thing would have been to avoid restarting Cold War 2 at all costs and expanding the divide between East and West. I miss the days where Putin was talking about joining NATO and trying to make Russia look good at the Olympics. The more defense expenditures grow in Russia, US, and Europe, the worst things will get. In particular the Russian military has all the excuses to invest in further developing itself after this war. The depressed defense spending in Europe was a blessing for a long time, now Cold War 2 has opened a global loser's race.

It's a big win for Lockheed and Raytheon though.

[ljadw]

Why is Putin in the wrong ? Starting a war is not putting him in the wrong. Saddam started also a war ,and what did Carter? He helped him .
And if his war is stupid,that is not our business .
Saying that one can not start a war is very ridiculous. Millions have been killed since WW2 and in most cases US did not stop a war ,or even started him

Are you telling us that Putin, starting a pointless war (if it wasnt pointless at the start it sure is now), is acceptable given Putin's own stated desires (rebuild the Soviet Union) ? Putin wants to annex entirely, or at least install a puppet government (aka: Lukashenko). The Ukrainians as a whole clearly do not want this.

The war is ground down to a stalemate. What justifies its continuation in your eyes ? Who benefits ?

Stop Putin now, prevent future occurances. We let Crimea slide and look where it got us.

Our exchanges are descending into political theory, while I suspect we both want the same thing: end the war in UKR.

Mad Dog

War needs no justification .
It is not on me ,or you to decide that this war should stop or continue . It is not our business . I am a Belgian citizen, you are an American . We are not Russians or Ukrainians .

[ljadw]

NO : the interventions from the US are not done because US interests are threatened and they do not make better US position . See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Syria,etc ..
The hidden reason is the belief of the Democrats and neocons that there is no peaceful coexistence possible between a liberal democracy and a dictatorship and that it is thus the duty of US to impose its political system on the rest of the world .The fact that they have failed,will not stop them .
Africa has rejected communism, so will it reject US democracy .This applies for the rest of the world .
As Harry, Adolf Barnes ( a Neonazi ,but even Neonazis say exceptionally something that is correct )said : if you want eternal peace, you will have eternal war .
The best foreign policy is not to interfere in the business of other countries: thus not to attack Putin because he is persecuting his enemies ,thus not to give money to the imbeciles of Amnesty International,and not to admit ''political ''refugees not to attack the conservative governments of Poland and Hungary .Only an imbecile as Woodrow Wilson could say that the US were fighting to make the world safe for democracy .
Tyranny is the normal thing, situation in the history of the world . Democracy is only an intermediate step .

Are you claiming isolationism is the best policy ? Really ? Not enter WW2 at all ?

Mad Dog

Only 2 countries joined the war in September 1939, for vague ideological countries . The rest of the world said : not our business, we remain neutral and maybe we can make some money of this war .They preferred isolationism .

[Cult Icon]

https://understandingwar.org/background ... -august-13



The Russians currently are penetrating the Sivesk-Soledar-Bakmut defense line frontally (two echelons of Ukrainian units remain in the Donbass). They have entered Bakmut already and are contesting the city. Pisky was contested recently. The Avdiika area, a huge maze of trenches and very deep defense in depth is being engaged.

Essentially it is looking like a larger version of what they did in the Luhansk Oblast. It is likely that they will try to clear the Avdiika area, then breakout from the South, with the Izyum salient being the 'anvil'. The breakout from the South may be a WW2 style offensive operation like at Popasna, with significant reserves being shifted over. Then shift reserves around, compressing the salient until they merge towards the twin cities S-K for the 'final battle'.

[Cult Icon]

https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

This manual is from the 1980s, but from pg. 136-139 there are tables on ammunition use for artillery. One can see approx. how much ammunition is required to perform various effects (suppression, annihilation, etc.) on various targets and hectares.

The drones, limited number of guided rounds, and modern techniques would dramatically reduce the number of rounds needed to engage these targets.

In the 1980s it required 270 x 152mm rounds to suppress a battery of armored SP artillery guns at ranges 10KM or less.

The 6000 heavy rounds/day, more or less claimed to be fired by the Ukrainians if measured by 1980s standards would be shooting at perhaps 30 - more or less- targets of suppression/destruction. Modern standards would raise this considerably. And what percentage of the remaining (hundreds) of guns fire 155mm and Western ammunition? Their deliveries of Western artillery pieces aren't much, so the ammunition must be all fired from a relatively small portion of their remaining artillery park.

They don't have the ammunition to fully annihilate many hectares, it would be a too immense drain on their daily ration.

[Cult Icon]

In the 1980s, for destroying hectares (2.47 acres) it is more or less 1500-1000 rounds of 122mm. That gives an impression of the quantities involved. However, modern means with close surveillance (drones, satellites, etc.) should dramatically cut the quantity required.

Still it gives an approx. impression of the hundreds of rounds involved in annihilating one hectare. With Russian expenditures claimed at 50,000 and such it can be seen that perhaps perhaps dozens of hectare could be cleared a day when combined with other combat needs, like counter-battery fire and suppression/destruction of targets.

[Peter89]

The smart thing would have been to avoid restarting Cold War 2 at all costs and expanding the divide between East and West. I miss the days where Putin was talking about joining NATO and trying to make Russia look good at the Olympics. The more defense expenditures grow in Russia, US, and Europe, the worst things will get. In particular the Russian military has all the excuses to invest in further developing itself after this war. The depressed defense spending in Europe was a blessing for a long time, now Cold War 2 has opened a global loser's race.

I realized that kind of talk is not an easy sell for multiple reasons. One of which is no matter what their politicians have said, Russia, Europe and the US were rapidly losing ground in the world: demography-, economy- and military-wise. The relative power of these regions was nowhere near today's level when the median age electorate received it's education, general worldview and socialization.

In fact both Europe and Russia could ill-afford a war; this war in particular. Indeed, the only potential strategic ally both parties could hope for is each other.

But it is the summer of 1914 in the heads, and everyone thinks "we can do it", although it is not specified what it actually is or where will it lead. Everyone thinks the world leading position and the system built around our needs is not in jeopardy. But it is.

[Aida1]

The smart thing would have been to avoid restarting Cold War 2 at all costs and expanding the divide between East and West. I miss the days where Putin was talking about joining NATO and trying to make Russia look good at the Olympics. The more defense expenditures grow in Russia, US, and Europe, the worst things will get. In particular the Russian military has all the excuses to invest in further developing itself after this war. The depressed defense spending in Europe was a blessing for a long time, now Cold War 2 has opened a global loser's race.

Only a losers race for Putin and Russia. And his responsability only.

[Aida1]

In the 1980s, for destroying hectares (2.47 acres) it is more or less 1500-1000 rounds of 122mm. That gives an impression of the quantities involved. However, modern means with close surveillance (drones, satellites, etc.) should dramatically cut the quantity required.

Still it gives an approx. impression of the hundreds of rounds involved in annihilating one hectare. With Russian expenditures claimed at 50,000 and such it can be seen that perhaps perhaps dozens of hectare could be cleared a day when combined with other combat needs, like counter-battery fire and suppression/destruction of targets.

Clearly still enamored with blind battering instead of more sophisticated tactics.

[Aida1]

https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

This manual is from the 1980s, but from pg. 136-139 there are tables on ammunition use for artillery. One can see approx. how much ammunition is required to perform various effects (suppression, annihilation, etc.) on various targets and hectares.

The drones, limited number of guided rounds, and modern techniques would dramatically reduce the number of rounds needed to engage these targets.

In the 1980s it required 270 x 152mm rounds to suppress a battery of armored SP artillery guns at ranges 10KM or less.

The 6000 heavy rounds/day, more or less claimed to be fired by the Ukrainians if measured by 1980s standards would be shooting at perhaps 30 - more or less- targets of suppression/destruction. Modern standards would raise this considerably. And what percentage of the remaining (hundreds) of guns fire 155mm and Western ammunition? Their deliveries of Western artillery pieces aren't much, so the ammunition must be all fired from a relatively small portion of their remaining artillery park.

They don't have the ammunition to fully annihilate many hectares, it would be a too immense drain on their daily ration.

Not needed to do blind battering of hectares. There are better ways.

[ljadw]

The smart thing would have been to avoid restarting Cold War 2 at all costs and expanding the divide between East and West. I miss the days where Putin was talking about joining NATO and trying to make Russia look good at the Olympics. The more defense expenditures grow in Russia, US, and Europe, the worst things will get. In particular the Russian military has all the excuses to invest in further developing itself after this war. The depressed defense spending in Europe was a blessing for a long time, now Cold War 2 has opened a global loser's race.

The depressed defense spending in Europe coincided with , resulted in the material/spiritual impoverishment of Europe .
The US military-industrial complex would never accept that Russia would join NATO .