Aseahawkfan wrote:I fully expect America to give up again as that has become our pattern. I expect them to come up with some politically expedient reason to pull back or come to some accord where a portion of Ukraine is retained and likely divided up. Then I expect history to repeat itself as America and Europe once again made the mistake of empowering their enemies to their long-term detriment which will eventually cost them a lot of global power as they find nations like China and Russia rebuilt sufficient power to exert global influence in a world where America and Europe no longer appear as attractive options to ally with. Old, weakened nations that have lost their culture and identity trying to force a cultural and social paradigm on the world that not many nations want.
This is not the America that won in World War 2 or that dominated the past 50 or 60 years with a lot of tough as nails people descended from people that came to a new land and carved out a powerful and productive nation. All I see across the sea in places like China is a hunger for success that we don't have in America as strong as it was. Instead we're dealing with fentanyl and heroin addiction, teaching future generations that they all have mental disorders, and a decaying culture that no longer values family or work ethic as important. I wonder what this nation will look like in 50 years with the looney left and right continuing their path to an insane, divided and culturally strange America.
How do you help other nations when you can't even fix the issues in your own nation with an abundance of resources to do so?
You can't compare America's involvement in WW2 to the subsequent proxy wars since then. First off, in WW2, we were attacked directly before entering, suffering over 2,000 American deaths, which represented a clear threat that everyone could understand. Literally overnight, the Pearl Harbor attack galvanized public opinion. Prior to then, there was a very sizable anti war sentiment against our involvement. Without Pearl Harbor, we may not have entered the war, or at least not prosecuted it with the vengeance that we did and stayed the course for nearly 4 years.
Secondly, it was a different day and time. The press was obedient servants of the government and rarely wrote anything negative about our participation. Atrocities on our side were never spoken of. No TV images beamed directly into the living rooms on the home front. And even in that environment, by the time August of 1945 had rolled around, public sentiment had begun to change. Had Japan not surrendered when they did, had we not dropped the two nukes and had to invade their home islands, our country likely would not have continued to support a policy of unconditional surrender.
You can blame a lot of things on the younger generations, but you can't blame our attitude towards these proxy wars on the other side of the ocean on them. We've always had that attitude, going all the way back to the founding of the nation when George Washington advised the country to avoid foreign entanglements.
A retired general, Wesley Clark, wrote a very good article regarding the prosecution of the war in Ukraine that I suggest that you and the others read. Here's a couple of excerpts that highlights my concerns:
But what might appear to be a thus-far brilliantly managed containment of Russian aggression is balanced on a welter of conflicting concerns and seems to lack a specific goal.
The emerging strategy seems aimed at "bleeding out" the Russian aggression, albeit at a very high cost in Ukrainian casualties, even though virtually every analysis shows that Putin is driven by geostrategic aims and is not deterred by huge losses.
The war has thus become fundamentally a war of resources – what Russia can mobilize versus what the West can and will provide. But can Putin be persuaded to give up before Ukraine loses the support of the West?
Most wars are usually ended by negotiations, but negotiations ensue only when one side or the other foresees losing on the battlefield, and the outcome of such negotiations reflects battlefield outcomes. Putin is determined, but he is not irrational. He must be convinced he is losing to be persuaded to come to the negotiating table.
Simply holding the line in Donbas is unlikely to be sufficient, no matter the extent of Russian losses. This argues for a more pointed strategy: One that enables Ukraine to threaten what Putin most values – Crimea – while also holding in Donbas. With Crimea, Russia achieves military dominance of the Black Sea, control over its natural resources, as well as threatening Ukraine's economic lifeline to the West. But Crimea is not Russia’s; it is legally part of Ukraine. It was seized in early 2014 by a Russian military operation. The West has maintained selective sanctions on Russia for nearly nine years to punish Russian aggression there.
In coming months, Ukraine should receive more of the tools it needs to counterattack successfully, closing the land bridge and advancing into Crimea.
Absent this reinforcement of Ukrainian capabilities, the battle in Ukraine is likely to seesaw back and forth inconclusively into the next year, with increasing risks of Western frustration and Russian escalation.https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 322437002/In other words, Ukraine can't win this simply by fighting a war of attrition. Putin doesn't care how many men and materials he expends in the war and he doesn't have to worry about attitudes and opinions on his home front, at least not to the same degree as the West does. He knows that we do not have the stomach for a years long effort. The Ukrainians need to go on the offensive, start attacking assets that Putin values, put his regime at risk, make him start sweating.
This is what I was talking about in my previous remarks. You guys are ignoring a political reality. You can't just say
"We stay the course until the mission is completed" or
"You can't set an arbitrary time limit". To do so is the equivalent of sticking your heads in the sand. The time factor is NOT arbitrary. The problem is the 2024 elections, the campaign of which begins in earnest about this time next year. If something isn't done by then to at least show some positive results, Biden is going to lose support and it will pave the way for another 4 years of Trump.
be the same model . Threaten nuclear war, attack country , west cowers . Where’s it ending indeed ? It will be political for the reason Asea said . We are a fat lazy spoiled rotten bunch of slobs whining about inflation , fuel prices , supply chain disruptions . Damn the world . We want our cozy existence .