War in Ukraine

#69,101
#69,101
LouderVol said:
Was the war over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Do you know what non-interventionalist means? It doesn't mean we are pacifists who lets people get away with attacking us. It means that we ONLY defend ourselves.

You were asking about Germany/Hitler. Now you want to talk the Japanese? pretty easy.

We flip the script. Instead of focusing Europe first, we should have focused Japan first as they are the ones who actually attacked us. After we beat up his one ally with a navy we see if Hitler still wants to eff around. Even IF Germany had defeated Russia, they wouldn't have had the manpower to mount a successful campaign west across the Atlantic. I don't see taking out the Russians as bringing the Germans any closer to actually landing on British soil, yet alone American soil. By the time we finished with the Japanese our Navy would be so insane Germany wouldn't have had a chance to cross the Atlantic. The number of ships we produced in 1944 alone was the second largest navy in the world, the rest of the American fleet was number 1. also Japan never joined the war against the Soviet Union, so its not like it would have been unpresented for one side of the Axis to sit out a fight with another's enemy.

and if we had just focused on Japan we probably would have landed troops in China to help them fight the Japanese ground forces. Which could/should have changed the direction of the RoC vs PRC fight, and today we wouldn't be dealing with a communist China, but instead a non-communist friendly China. You consider that in your what if of interventionalist? The questions go both ways. Why did the USSR become our enemy? Because we sided with the rest of Europe. Does that mean we should have sided with the USSR? Absolutely not. But it shows how interventionalism created bigger problems for us, than taking the route I would argue we "should" have. you are just ignoring all the blow backs from our interventionalist nature over the last 80 years and how it has created the crises of today. Its why I warn people to consider this WW1 rather than WW2. A bad peace treaty gets us a worse conflict in short order if we get involved.

FWIW I don't think the Japanese were close at all to getting nukes, before you try to flip that script, but I haven't specifically looked into their research towards that. and we were able to completely decimate their navy so its not like they could have launched a second Pearl Harbor.

so unless you want to argue 3 pretty significant completely non-historical what-ifs, my point still stands even when dealing with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

Heh. Mkay. Let's roll with your premise...

Was the US providing Great Britain with huge amounts of materiel before December 7, 1941 the "right" thing for thE US to do?
 
#69,102
#69,102
AM64 said:
All I've got is opinion. but here goes. Russia really wanted the eastern end of Ukraine for several reasons, but one has to do with Crimean access. Crimea has to do with Black Sea access. If you read much about sailing during the 1700 and 1800s, you begin to understand how difficult it is moving ships around when the capes at the bottom of Africa and S America are concerned. The Suez and Panama canals ease that; but for a navy to project power, unfettered access to bordering oceans is everything and Russia especially for its size doesn't have it. Russia to a great extent is largely landlocked and screwed.

There's plenty of Artic access, but much of that is not ice free. There's very limited Baltic access, and the Baltic itself is not much better than a big lake with a stopper. The UK is right there to limit Atlantic access from the Baltic, too. Go to the other end of Russia and the best sea access is Vladivostok. We've had discussions the last week or so about how Russia came up with what seemingly should be part of China, and how it looks like it could be China's for the taking. Come out of Vladivostok and there are limited sea lanes either up through the Kurils or down around Japan and Korea. Again not real friendly territory.

That gets back to the Black Sea and the fact that Ukraine is in the way. Russia annexed Crimea as part of the solution, but then there's the part about how to get to Crimea. This is a roundabout way of getting to an answer. Putin believed he could take Ukraine or at least the part really necessary, but it didn't work out the way he planned. Ukraine wasn't really prepared to fight when Russia invaded, but it didn't collapse either. What looks to be happening is something similar to but not exactly like an insurgency. Russia may be the bigger force with the ability to build weapons and munitions for fighting forces, but it's unable to deliver a sustaining blow. We won the battles in Vietnam and lost the war because there was never a peace. That's happening in Ukraine. Russia may hold important tracts of land (and a bridge), but Russia doesn't have free access as this new bridge strike shows.

The question isn't so much how any individual event slows Russia, but how long the two sides can keep it up and what the cost is to Russia overall. The Russian economy is suffering - deny it if you like, but Russia in this regard is in a position very similar to times we've faced. We had all the marbles and walked away with a loss. Russia had its Afghanistan. The bigger power isn't always the winner; the little guy has to keep punching, and it's very effective when the land where the war is fought belongs to the little guy. I think Russia is also facing a huge loss of face, and the Russian annexed states that were previously part of the USSR are likely to move against Russia because of what's happening in Ukraine.

That's my view, and to be honest I don't know much about Russia/Ukrainian history, and I don't read most news stories about this war. Primarily stuff from The Drive, so my aspect is just a lot of what I perceive. I just try to figure out what my thoughts would be if I were in a certain position. For Russia: they've got a huge country, lots of resources (questionable on the people part of that), a lot of leftover ego (in people like Putin) from the height of the USSR, very little sea access for trade and military might ... A wise person would probably forget the old days as a world terror and use what he has to build a prosperous country blessed with a lot of natural resources - and most of all develop a democratic type country free of corruption (government, thugs, and those who got away with the USSR's treasury and holdings).
Click to expand...
Nothing you are saying about Crimea is groundbreaking. We all know that Crimea is Russia's main warm-water port and home of the Black Sea fleet. The Russians were leasing the Crimean port from Ukraine for close to 20 years after the fall of the USSR. It was obviously important to them. But when the US lead coup in 2014 occurred, the Russians did what any country in it's position would have done and annexed it to keep NATO from using that Black Sea facility. And it's not like the Russian really had to do any arm twisting to get the people of Crimea to jump into the arms of the Russians when you consider that the majority of people there identify with Russian culturally and have friends, family or business connections to the naval port.

The stuff about the capes and Suez and Panama canals are obvious, also. But neither the Suez or Panama canals play a role in Russia being able to project power. They have access to the Atlantic and Pacific with their submarine fleet. That is really their only concern. The British are not the British of 150 years ago. Their navy is not going to do jack to bottleneck the Baltic Sea. Also, unlike the American empire, Russia isn't concerned about projecting power in anywhere to the same degree as the US.
 
#69,103
#69,103
Mods, would suggest leaving war-related memes here on the board dedicated to the war. Nobody on the meme board wants to see war-related info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volsdeep4
#69,104
#69,104
Hunerwadel said:
I've been wondering why they have hit the paved side twice and haven't gone for the railway. Could it be that collapsing or at least stopping traffic on the paved side has a greater psychological impact on the Russian people and even the leaders?
Click to expand...

It's definitely an interesting question. I'd wonder if the road bridge is more easily damaged than the rail bridge, or for a water attack if the direction made a difference. There's some conjecture in The Drive about the rail bridge being more resistant to an upward blast because of height and type construction. Could also be something as simple as disrupting traffic to the "Russian Rivera" (my term) during holiday season. It almost seems that Crimea is good for recreation and Sevastopol for the Russian Navy. Maybe the thought is that without Russian tourists that Crimea would be a better place ... somewhat like FL without the yankees. One other serious thought is that Crimea is Ukraine's bargaining chip - Russia out of Ukrainian territory in exchange for Crimea and Kerch access.

To really take the bridge down probably requires taking out the piers. Historically, damaged roadbeds are repaired and the bridge goes back into business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and Hunerwadel
#69,105
#69,105
Rasputin_Vol said:
Nothing you are saying about Crimea is groundbreaking. We all know that Crimea is Russia's main warm-water port and home of the Black Sea fleet. The Russians were leasing the Crimean port from Ukraine for close to 20 years after the fall of the USSR. It was obviously important to them. But when the US lead coup in 2014 occurred, the Russians did what any country in it's position would have done and annexed it to keep NATO from using that Black Sea facility. And it's not like the Russian really had to do any arm twisting to get the people of Crimea to jump into the arms of the Russians when you consider that the majority of people there identify with Russian culturally and have friends, family or business connections to the naval port.

The stuff about the capes and Suez and Panama canals are obvious, also. But neither the Suez or Panama canals play a role in Russia being able to project power. They have access to the Atlantic and Pacific with their submarine fleet. That is really their only concern. The British are not the British of 150 years ago. Their navy is not going to do jack to bottleneck the Baltic Sea. Also, unlike the American empire, Russia isn't concerned about projecting power in anywhere to the same degree as the US.
Click to expand...

You're right; there's nothing earth shattering or new in that. Russia just has limited sea access, and Putin seems to be more interested in taking what he wants by force than working with neighbors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel, LouderVol, norrislakevol and 1 other person
#69,106
#69,106
MontyPython said:
Heh. Mkay. Let's roll with your premise...

Was the US providing Great Britain with huge amounts of materiel before December 7, 1941 the "right" thing for thE US to do?
Click to expand...
by providing, you mean selling? I have no exception to us selling goods to whoever, even to the point of providing the goods to only one side of a conflict. We can choose to deal with whoever we want to deal with.

Where I draw the line is us continuing to use American shipping knowing the Germans were targeting us. If Britain needed our goods, they should come and get them. The British dragged us into the line of fire, so that we would get involved and lose even more lives.
 
#69,108
#69,108
Rasputin_Vol said:
Nothing you are saying about Crimea is groundbreaking. We all know that Crimea is Russia's main warm-water port and home of the Black Sea fleet. The Russians were leasing the Crimean port from Ukraine for close to 20 years after the fall of the USSR. It was obviously important to them. But when the US lead coup in 2014 occurred, the Russians did what any country in it's position would have done and annexed it to keep NATO from using that Black Sea facility. And it's not like the Russian really had to do any arm twisting to get the people of Crimea to jump into the arms of the Russians when you consider that the majority of people there identify with Russian culturally and have friends, family or business connections to the naval port.

The stuff about the capes and Suez and Panama canals are obvious, also. But neither the Suez or Panama canals play a role in Russia being able to project power. They have access to the Atlantic and Pacific with their submarine fleet. That is really their only concern. The British are not the British of 150 years ago. Their navy is not going to do jack to bottleneck the Baltic Sea. Also, unlike the American empire, Russia isn't concerned about projecting power in anywhere to the same degree as the US.
Click to expand...
ah, another made up argument, NATO stealing the Svastapol ports somehow. That was never in question, Russia's lease still had a long time left, and there was never even a proposal to get the Svastapol ports for NATO. Really superfluous for NATO btw. They already had plenty of Black Sea access, and its not like Russia would have totally had to leave the Black Sea without Svastapol, so its not like taking Crimea would have allowed NATO to completely change their strategic planning for the region. and really damning to your argument is there was no talks about Ukraine joining NATO. Look at how long, and public the talks have been for Sweden and Finland to join NATO AFTER Russia justified NATO's existence. IF talks had started with Ukraine they were going to take a really long time to happen, so again Russia had no real threat of losing their lease on the ports.

and yes, they did have to force the Crimeans. They invaded, kicked out the local elected officials, held the people at gun point, and made them vote on a ballot whose only option was join Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and tvolsfan
#69,109
#69,109
AM64 said:
It's definitely an interesting question. I'd wonder if the road bridge is more easily damaged than the rail bridge, or for a water attack if the direction made a difference. There's some conjecture in The Drive about the rail bridge being more resistant to an upward blast because of height and type construction. Could also be something as simple as disrupting traffic to the "Russian Rivera" (my term) during holiday season. It almost seems that Crimea is good for recreation and Sevastopol for the Russian Navy. Maybe the thought is that without Russian tourists that Crimea would be a better place ... somewhat like FL without the yankees. One other serious thought is that Crimea is Ukraine's bargaining chip - Russia out of Ukrainian territory in exchange for Crimea and Kerch access.

To really take the bridge down probably requires taking out the piers. Historically, damaged roadbeds are repaired and the bridge goes back into business.
Click to expand...
less tourists also frees up Ukraine to take more military actions without threatening innocent lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and tvolsfan
#69,112
#69,112
LouderVol said:
by providing, you mean selling? I have no exception to us selling goods to whoever, even to the point of providing the goods to only one side of a conflict. We can choose to deal with whoever we want to deal with.

Where I draw the line is us continuing to use American shipping knowing the Germans were targeting us. If Britain needed our goods, they should come and get them. The British dragged us into the line of fire, so that we would get involved and lose even more lives.
Click to expand...

Rosevelt wanted to get into the war in 1939 but couldn't. He saw an opportunity to have the European empires destroyed and replaced with an expanded US empire partnered with the USSR. Brittan didn't "drag" us into the war, Rosevelt dragged us in.
 
#69,115
#69,115
How's the spring/summer offensive going? Don't hear much about gains on the ground for either side.
 
#69,116
#69,116
hog88 said:
How's the spring/summer offensive going? Don't hear much about gains on the ground for either side.
Click to expand...
an analyst on Fareed posted by Velo thinks this stalemates for years as neither side has advantage
probably accurate
 
#69,124
#69,124
hog88 said:
Rosevelt wanted to get into the war in 1939 but couldn't. He saw an opportunity to have the European empires destroyed and replaced with an expanded US empire partnered with the USSR. Brittan didn't "drag" us into the war, Rosevelt dragged us in.
Click to expand...
I will agree that Roosevelt signed some very....irregular trade deals that put us on the path. But the British still authored them. I can't really blame them, they were facing potential destruction.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top