• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The West underestimated Ukraine’s bravery. Now, it’s underestimating Russia’s brutality.

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,563
Reaction score
81,644
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The West underestimated Ukraine’s bravery. Now, it’s underestimating Russia’s brutality.

iu

The large city of Mariupol has been purposefully and horrifically destroyed by the Russian military.

By Andriy Yermak - Head of the Presidential Office of Ukraine

Ukraine’s resistance against Russia’s horrific invasion has exceeded every outside prediction. Many in the West did not understand Ukrainians’ love for their freedom, for their democracy. For us, losing our country would be worse than death. And that’s why we fight — because defeat is not an option. While the United States, Poland and many other freedom-loving countries are standing firm with Ukraine, some states in Europe seem willing to accept a Ukraine partially occupied by Russian invaders — anything so they can keep buying Russian gas and oil and conduct business as usual. But business as usual now means accepting Russians bombing maternity hospitals and theaters full of civilians taking shelter. More than 1,200 civilians have been murdered in Mariupol alone. This is how Russia wages wars. It did it in Grozny in 1999 and in Syria in 2015. Now, it is doing it in Ukraine. This is a scorched-earth campaign to wipe Ukraine — its people, its culture, its history — off the map.

Just as many erroneously predicted that Ukraine would fall within 72 hours, many failed to predict the mass atrocities the Russian troops would commit despite their long history of absolute disregard for life, and lust for blood and destruction. But Ukrainian soldiers are staring down a Russian military that is just getting started. A Russian military that keeps erasing Ukrainian cities with indiscriminate cruise-missile and MLRS barrages. Ukrainians are willing to fight this war for the West as well as for ourselves — but we can’t do it without the necessary military equipment. We need the defensive lethal assistance President Zelenskyy has requested repeatedly: fighter jets, air and missile defense systems, drones, anti-armor weapons, guns, ammunition, protective equipment. If we don’t get the equipment we need to succeed, Putin won’t stop in Ukraine. He will go for NATO next. To freedom-loving people around the world we say: This is your war, too. Help us win it. If not, the harshest dictatorship since World War II will triumph over Europe. The West cannot allow this to happen.


As a reminder, the United States and its allies established humanitarian corridors in Iraq in 1991 and 2014, in Bosnia from 1993 to 1995, and in Libya in 2011. Despite these countries not belonging to NATO, the West intervened to stop the inhumane targeting of civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance which saved countless lives. If not humanitarian corridors, then supply the Ukrainians with whatever weaponry they require to drive the Russian military from all of Ukraine.
 
As a reminder, the United States and its allies established humanitarian corridors in Iraq in 1991 and 2014, in Bosnia from 1993 to 1995, and in Libya in 2011. Despite these countries not belonging to NATO, the West intervened to stop the inhumane targeting of civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance which saved countless lives. If not humanitarian corridors, then supply the Ukrainians with whatever weaponry they require to drive the Russian military from all of Ukraine.
This is already being undertaken by Western allies.
 
The West underestimated Ukraine’s bravery. Now, it’s underestimating Russia’s brutality.

iu

The large city of Mariupol has been purposefully and horrifically destroyed by the Russian military.




As a reminder, the United States and its allies established humanitarian corridors in Iraq in 1991 and 2014, in Bosnia from 1993 to 1995, and in Libya in 2011. Despite these countries not belonging to NATO, the West intervened to stop the inhumane targeting of civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance which saved countless lives. If not humanitarian corridors, then supply the Ukrainians with whatever weaponry they require to drive the Russian military from all of Ukraine.

Except for the fact that doing so required engaging in shooting war with the Iraqi, Libyan and Serbian militaries as well as paramilitaries in Iraq and Bosnia. Which, of course, means your plan fails for the same reason a no fly zone is a non-starter.
 
And perhaps just as many reasons why that might be the case.

The main reason being an unfamiliarity with non-Soviet weapon platforms.

On another level, NATO needs to stop publicly announcing what it won't do.
 
And perhaps just as many reasons why that might be the case.

You mean like "Weapon X" is "offensive" not "defensive"? Or "You don't need Weapon Y because we are the experts" or "We get very nervous when Putin is offended?"
 
You mean like "Weapon X" is "offensive" not "defensive"?
Yes - I mean exactly like that. Surely you're not stupid enough to want to give Ukraine nuclear weapons, or long range bombers, or missiles that can attack Moscow, or any other supremely ****ing ignorant things that will lead to their own total annihilation.
Or "You don't need Weapon Y because we are the experts"
We ARE the experts, especially when it comes to our own multilateral treaty obligations.
or "We get very nervous when Putin is offended?"
HA!
 
Yes - I mean exactly like that. Surely you're not stupid enough to want to give Ukraine nuclear weapons, or long range bombers, or missiles that can attack Moscow, or any other supremely ****ing ignorant things that will lead to their own total annihilation.

Well, I am not stupid enough to believe, that you believe, that what you wrote was anything other than false choices. Seriously Mambo, you know as well that nobody has supported giving Ukraine nuclear weapons, or long range bombers, or even missiles that could reach Moscow. The entire issue has been over weapons like Mig 29s and SUs, modern tanks, MRLS, SAMS, long range artillery and howitzers, and shore based anti-ship missiles.

So if you want to debate this, I'm all for it. But unless you can stay on the reality page well...you know the answer.

We ARE the experts, especially when it comes to our own multilateral treaty obligations.

HA!

"We" are not "the experts" in Ukraine's method of warfare because "we" have never practiced doing without. "We" practice what Ukraine is asking for, which "we" have suddenly discovered to be "not needed" in conventional war...which apparently means the western way of warfare using conventional arms like tanks and planes is useless as are all the hundreds of billions "we" spend on their acquisition.

The so-called "experts" can't have their cake and eat it too. If Ukraine does not need planes and tanks to fight a war, then we don't either. The disingenuous rationalizations for denying Ukraine what they desperately need won't sell to anyone with an IQ over 90.

As to treaty obligations, another strawman. No one said "we" are obligated by treaty to Ukraine...other than you.

Please try to adhere to actual issues, shall we?
 
Well, I am not stupid enough to believe, that you believe, that what you wrote was anything other than false choices. Seriously Mambo, you know as well that nobody has supported giving Ukraine nuclear weapons, or long range bombers, or even missiles that could reach Moscow. The entire issue has been over weapons like Mig 29s and SUs, modern tanks, MRLS, SAMS, long range artillery and howitzers, and shore based anti-ship missiles.
I responded directly to the questions you asked! Read your own questions. The weapons I listed would be viewed as offensive, rather than defensive. As for the notion that "nobody has supported giving Ukraine nuclear weapons, etc., etc", the fact is that idiots on this very website have advocated 'nuking Russia. Moreover, as far as anyone knows, nobody has totally ruled out everything on your list of modern weaponry - the conflict isn't even 2 months old yet.

Western nations - MULTILATERALLY - have to agree on what to provide Ukraine, and how they can provide it.
So if you want to debate this, I'm all for it. But unless you can stay on the reality page well...you know the answer.
I never left the reality page.
"We" are not "the experts" in Ukraine's method of warfare because "we" have never practiced doing without. "We" practice what Ukraine is asking for, which "we" have suddenly discovered to be "not needed" in conventional war...which apparently means the western way of warfare using conventional arms like tanks and planes is useless as are all the hundreds of billions "we" spend on their acquisition.

The so-called "experts" can't have their cake and eat it too. If Ukraine does not need planes and tanks to fight a war, then we don't either. The disingenuous rationalizations for denying Ukraine what they desperately need won't sell to anyone with an IQ over 90.
?? Sounds like at least a platoon of straw men, there. What "experts" can you quote who say that Ukraine does not need planes and tanks to fight a war? I'm not aware of any. "WE" are not currently in any conventional war, but the last thing that came closest was the invasion of Iraq, which predates most modern drone weaponry by two decades. If we're able to target and destroy Russian tanks with drones, then what practical use does facing them with other tanks serve? We currently have 2,000 M1-A1 Abrams sitting in a field in California - ones that we are unlikely to ever use. If there was ever a time to ship them to western Europe, that time is long passed. If you really believe there are no better options than to start shipping tanks to Ukraine now, then I suspect you haven't been keeping up with events on the ground in Ukraine.
As to treaty obligations, another strawman. No one said "we" are obligated by treaty to Ukraine...other than you.
No. I said no such thing. We are obligated by treaties to NATO, and members of the European Union, and should only be making decisions about arming Ukraine, in multilateral conjunction with the wishes of those neighboring partners - with whom I have no doubt we are in contact every day.
Please try to adhere to actual issues, shall we?
WHA? Adhere to actual issues? I was responding to your own questions. If you don't think I was adhering to actual issues, then we can only concluded that your questions were not adhering to actual issues.
 
The West underestimated Ukraine’s bravery. Now, it’s underestimating Russia’s brutality.

iu

The large city of Mariupol has been purposefully and horrifically destroyed by the Russian military.




As a reminder, the United States and its allies established humanitarian corridors in Iraq in 1991 and 2014, in Bosnia from 1993 to 1995, and in Libya in 2011. Despite these countries not belonging to NATO, the West intervened to stop the inhumane targeting of civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance which saved countless lives. If not humanitarian corridors, then supply the Ukrainians with whatever weaponry they require to drive the Russian military from all of Ukraine.
The west is making the same mistakes in made in 1938-39.
 
I responded directly to the questions you asked! Read your own questions. The weapons I listed would be viewed as offensive, rather than defensive. As for the notion that "nobody has supported giving Ukraine nuclear weapons, etc., etc", the fact is that idiots on this very website have advocated 'nuking Russia. Moreover, as far as anyone knows, nobody has totally ruled out everything on your list of modern weaponry - the conflict isn't even 2 months old yet.
Western nations - MULTILATERALLY - have to agree on what to provide Ukraine, and how they can provide it.

That you responded "directly" to my mockery of typical administration excuses isn't in question. What is in question is your defense of such excuses by employing examples of application that have no relevancy to the debate. Excuses like the denial of Weapon X because Weapon X is offensive and not defensive is a red herring, used repeatedly by the administration. It doesn't even have coherent meaning in military doctrine, because all the weapons of war are used to defend on defense, and attack on offense. This "rule" is purely self-induced night sweat of very old and unreconstructed cold war liberals - individuals who were always terrified of winning but also terrified of losing.

Challenge the administration to explain the benchmarks of difference and why the difference matters, and Psaki will stumble through an attempt because she doesn't have a clue - its just a subjective consideration depending on administrations fears of taking the initiative until pressured.

Here's the issue, what makes supplying tanks (which we are finally facilitating), planes, artillery or anti-ship missiles unacceptable? How is that decided? Are we supposed to let Putin tells us what he will accept or not?

What "experts" can you quote who say that Ukraine does not need planes and tanks to fight a war? I'm not aware of any.
Nor am I, which is why I put quote marks around the word "experts" (meaning so-called). On the other hand the civilians staff "experts" surrounding Biden and the desk jockeys in the Pentagon are issuing all sorts of claims why "planes aren't needed" or "it's to complex for Ukrainians"... yada, yada, yada. Hypocritical nonsense given that all armies need these things to win. DUH! (directed at these naysayers, not you).

"WE" are not currently in any conventional war, but the last thing that came closest was the invasion of Iraq, which predates most modern drone weaponry by two decades. If we're able to target and destroy Russian tanks with drones, then what practical use does facing them with other tanks serve?

Maybe you ought to be asking that question of our own military, who do believe they are necessary... except when Ukraine needs them.
... I suspect you haven't been keeping up with events on the ground in Ukraine.

I have, and NATO military doctrine has not changed in the last 40 days. The poor tactics and badly trained troops of Russia confirm that western doctrine and tactics are far superior. And it also suggest that a robust offense could defeat Russia, However, such offenses need air cover, sams, tanks, mrls, and deep strike artillery. Without them it is unlikely that the Russians can be driven from Ukraine. A stalemate is not a substitute for victory.

We are obligated by treaties to NATO, and members of the European Union, and should only be making decisions about arming Ukraine, in multilateral conjunction with the wishes of those neighboring partners - with whom I have no doubt we are in contact every day.
So? The problem isn't that we are pressing for heavy weapons and others are stopping us, the problem is that we are one of the roadblocks in NATO to providing heavy weapons. Don't excuse the administrations feckless and irrational position by blaming others... the administration itself won't even claim that it wants Ukraine to win.

What does that tell ya, hmmmm?
 
That you responded "directly" to my mockery of typical administration excuses isn't in question. What is in question is your defense of such excuses by employing examples of application that have no relevancy to the debate. Excuses like the denial of Weapon X because Weapon X is offensive and not defensive is a red herring, used repeatedly by the administration. It doesn't even have coherent meaning in military doctrine, because all the weapons of war are used to defend on defense, and attack on offense. This "rule" is purely self-induced night sweat of very old and unreconstructed cold war liberals - individuals who were always terrified of winning but also terrified of losing.
:sleep:
Challenge the administration to explain the benchmarks of difference and why the difference matters, and Psaki will stumble through an attempt because she doesn't have a clue - its just a subjective consideration depending on administrations fears of taking the initiative until pressured.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Here's the issue, what makes supplying tanks (which we are finally facilitating), planes, artillery or anti-ship missiles unacceptable? How is that decided? Are we supposed to let Putin tells us what he will accept or not?

Nor am I, which is why I put quote marks around the word "experts" (meaning so-called). On the other hand the civilians staff "experts" surrounding Biden and the desk jockeys in the Pentagon are issuing all sorts of claims why "planes aren't needed" or "it's to complex for Ukrainians"... yada, yada, yada. Hypocritical nonsense given that all armies need these things to win. DUH! (directed at these naysayers, not you).

Maybe you ought to be asking that question of our own military, who do believe they are necessary... except when Ukraine needs them.
Uh .... no, they certainly DON'T believe they are necessary! Maybe you ought to be asking the question about where you get your silly ideas from ??!!
I have, and NATO military doctrine has not changed in the last 40 days. The poor tactics and badly trained troops of Russia confirm that western doctrine and tactics are far superior. And it also suggest that a robust offense could defeat Russia, However, such offenses need air cover, sams, tanks, mrls, and deep strike artillery. Without them it is unlikely that the Russians can be driven from Ukraine. A stalemate is not a substitute for victory.

So? The problem isn't that we are pressing for heavy weapons and others are stopping us, the problem is that we are one of the roadblocks in NATO to providing heavy weapons. Don't excuse the administrations feckless and irrational position by blaming others... the administration itself won't even claim that it wants Ukraine to win.

What does that tell ya, hmmmm?
Well, for one thing, it tells me you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The heavy weapons you think the Pentagon is asking for are really just a Republican jobs program - afraid to give up military manufacturing jobs in their various districts around the country. The Army has been asking them to STOP building them FOR YEARS !!




It would be both draining of my time and effort, and unfair for me to continue this conversation with someone who, quite clearly, has no idea what they're talking about - so I'm out of here.

Peace to you, and good luck with your staggering misapprehensions.
 
This is what I have been worrying about: Russia's brutality and how it will, now, affect the offensive that I am sure Russia is about to launch in the East. There is little that can be done about the atrocities already committed by the Russians except to punish them for them. We must do whatever we can, now, to stop further atrocities. What can we, the NATO community, do to lessen Ukraine's vulnerability to Russia in the East (and South)?
 
As for the notion that "nobody has supported giving Ukraine nuclear weapons, etc., etc", the fact is that idiots on this very website have advocated 'nuking Russia. Moreover, as far as anyone knows, nobody has totally ruled out everything on your list of modern weaponry - the conflict isn't even 2 months old yet.

As if anyone here at DP has the power to export nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

Christ on a cracker.
 
As if anyone here at DP has the power to export nuclear weapons to Ukraine.
No - as if people here regurgitate shit they hear from extremist media sources which, if anyone's been paying attention, certainly unduly influences our Republican representatives. There's a never ending overflow of that manure on DP.
Christ on a cracker.
Dqgto96VAAAzuv5.jpg
Everything's better on a Ritz.
 
This is already being undertaken by Western allies.

Sorry for acting like the progressive police, but supplying the world with weapons isn't progressive.
 
US nuclear weapons could be transported to any country in the world very quickly. Some assholes thought it was clever to name this older one "Peacekeeper."

1649345861405.png
 
Sorry for acting like the progressive police, but supplying the world with weapons isn't progressive.
Keeping populations from being overrun and slaughtered is. Besides . . . arming the world is the American Way!
;)
 
Keeping populations from being overrun and slaughtered is. Besides . . . arming the world is the American Way!
;)

I'm all for "keeping populations from being overrun and slaughtered." Militarism isn't progressive, no matter how you slice it.
 
US nuclear weapons could be transported to any country in the world very quickly. Some assholes thought it was clever to name this older one "Peacekeeper."

View attachment 67384319
Peacekeeper Missile was one of my favorite oxymorons from the Reagan administration. We have a great history of inappropriate military euphemisms - right up there with precision bombing, gunboat diplomacy, smart bombs, etc. . . . and other witticisms from so-called compassionate conservatives.

There are already plenty of nuclear weapons in Europe - and not just ours. Nobody has to transport them.
 
Peacekeeper Missile was one of my favorite oxymorons from the Reagan administration. We have a great history of inappropriate military euphemisms - right up there with precision bombing, gunboat diplomacy, smart bombs, etc. . . . and other witticisms from so-called compassionate conservatives.

Raygun was a popular oxymoron. Unfortunately, many a liberal and progressive are conservative about the topics related to Ukraine.

There are already plenty of nuclear weapons in Europe - and not just ours.

You betcha! And what corporation has the most control over those nuclear weapons?
 
You betcha! And what corporation has the most control over those nuclear weapons?
I don't even know anymore. Back in the early 90's, it used to be General Electric, but they have since divested their interests. I have to suspect all the major aerospace, and some of the larger engineering firms, have a hand in it.
 
No - as if people here regurgitate shit they hear from extremist media sources which, if anyone's been paying attention, certainly unduly influences our Republican representatives. There's a never ending overflow of that manure on DP.

View attachment 67384318
Everything's better on a Ritz.
Christ is the cracker :p.
 
Back
Top Bottom