I ask because you give definitive answers to motivation. If you were not part of the process to you have a primary source to support your assertion?Do you think that I was?Again, were you part of that decision-making process?
The rest of your post is just silliness. There were wars before NATO. There will be wars after NATO.
It was a a golden opportunity. Perhaps it would have lead to complete eradication of nuclear arms piles and huge defense expenses which could have been used for betterment of people. The world would have been much safer.
BWAHAhaha!you have a primary source to support your assertion?
Ukraine has not explicitly stated its military objective with the operation inside Russia. But Zelenskyy and other officials have indicated the goal is not to hold on to Russian territory for an extended period.
They are suggesting that Ukraine wants to draw Russian troops to the Kursk region in hopes this will ease pressure on Ukrainian forces struggling to hold their ground in the main battlefront, in eastern Ukraine. Russia has been making incremental gains in the Donbas region, where they have more troops and more firepower than the Ukrainians.
...
Ukraine's forces attack 2nd western Russia border region : NPR - the Belgorod region
Ukraine has not explicitly stated its military objective with the operation inside Russia. But Zelenskyy and other officials have indicated the goal is not to hold on to Russian territory for an extended period.
They are suggesting that Ukraine wants to draw Russian troops to the Kursk region in hopes this will ease pressure on Ukrainian forces struggling to hold their ground in the main battlefront, in eastern Ukraine. Russia has been making incremental gains in the Donbas region, where they have more troops and more firepower than the Ukrainians.
That was my assumption too.According to the article, the objective in Kursk is not to hold the territory for long, but to draw military assets away from the operations in Ukrainian territory. I have read that Ukraine is preparing evacuation corridors out of Kursk. The second invasion of Russian territory would have the same objective. That would make sense as a strategy, but it isn't clear yet whether it is working. Russia is moving some forces from Kaliningrad to Kursk.
It's making Russia move troops around--more opportunity to hit them on the move. We have already seen that Russia doesn't have much they can throw against the Ukrainian incursion, they're getting hammered in trying and Russia is operating at it's logistics limit so everything they throw against the incursion weakens the main front.It still isn't clear to me what the ultimate objective there is. Ukraine is not going to hold that territory and will likely be driven out at some point. It was successful, because it was a surprise attack in a lightly defended area. Russia was counting on not being invaded at all, so they weren't prepared for it. Now they are scrambling to respond. I don't think that the incursion will have much effect on improving Western aid for the defense of Ukraine. In the US, everything is now about the presidential election, with Donald Trump and his wholly owned subsidiary, the Republican Party, representing a pro-Putin faction. It is hard enough to get budgetary support for Ukraine through Congress, and there will be considerable pushback over the use of American-manufactured military equipment being used inside of Russia.
Beyond that, there is also the goal of bringing the war to the Russian people. If Russian sources are to be believed, several hundred thousand people have been evacuated from the area. These people have to go somewhere and a lot will be headed to friends and family in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other Russian cities. Putin can control the media, but he can't control gossip. A hundred thousand people telling their story of the mighty Ukrainian Army is something Putin does not want to see.It's making Russia move troops around--more opportunity to hit them on the move. We have already seen that Russia doesn't have much they can throw against the Ukrainian incursion, they're getting hammered in trying and Russia is operating at it's logistics limit so everything they throw against the incursion weakens the main front.It still isn't clear to me what the ultimate objective there is. Ukraine is not going to hold that territory and will likely be driven out at some point. It was successful, because it was a surprise attack in a lightly defended area. Russia was counting on not being invaded at all, so they weren't prepared for it. Now they are scrambling to respond. I don't think that the incursion will have much effect on improving Western aid for the defense of Ukraine. In the US, everything is now about the presidential election, with Donald Trump and his wholly owned subsidiary, the Republican Party, representing a pro-Putin faction. It is hard enough to get budgetary support for Ukraine through Congress, and there will be considerable pushback over the use of American-manufactured military equipment being used inside of Russia.
The Russian Black Sea fleet is not doing much at the moment. Might as well use them.Russia is moving some forces from Kaliningrad to Kursk.
1/10 rouble = rubble?
Putin's sales pitch to the Russian public for the war was always a variation on, "You won't notice anything and it won't cost you a dime," or whatever 1/10 of a ruble is called in Russia.
FTFYThe Russian Black Sea fleet is not doing much at the moment. Might as welluselose them.
Yup, the ultimate ballot: feet.There has got to be a great asymmetry in immigration/emigration between the U.S. and India. I would think that far more people leave India to live in the US than leave the US to live in India. I could be wrong. Same goes for Russia. It is worth asking the question, "Why?"Except that those opinions originated with the same reading ... it's weird how thoroughly a person's view of the world can be made to diverge from reality through simple constant exposure to lies.There's no excuse for spending a lifetime reading what conforms to one's long held opinions.
Dresden was probably unwarranted. We didn't really have a choice with Japan, though, because the industry was so decentralized. Individual targets were so small as to be meaningless to the precision of the day even if they could be identified. The only way to destroy the industry was to destroy the cities.It was not just bombing, the issue was fire bombing. I think it was Harris who advocated terror bombing in response for German terror bombing. Churchill initially resisted on moral ground and then agreed.
The bombing of Dresden, both Brits and Americans dropped incendiaries along with high explosives. The firestorm was horrific.
Or Curtis Le May on Japan, firebombing and firestorms.
If someone is out to kill you and your family do you defend yourself according to a set of moral rules, or do you do anything to save your life and family?
I'm sure it is to a large degree confidential. We can see what the factories do produce (look at the budget stuff--$x for y units of item z) but that doesn't say how much capacity they have that could be redirected.I'd like to see a list of how fast the US can produce various weapons. If not confidential, I'm sure it is not something the DoD likes to make public.
The more sophisticated stuff has a long lead to to get from factory to field. Often measured in months or even years. X number of people can only produce so much. Putting on a second shift takes time. A whole new production line, even longer. Qualifications for the various positions and required training aside, security clearances also have to be obtained and maintained. Then once these individuals are hired and up to speed, we do not want to find them looking for another job two or three years from now.
Other countries with orders for US weapons end up getting their delivery date pushed back. And now we have god's chosen people taking some of what should go to Ukraine.
I see you know your WWII history. Japanese industry was spread out in residential areas.Dresden was probably unwarranted. We didn't really have a choice with Japan, though, because the industry was so decentralized. Individual targets were so small as to be meaningless to the precision of the day even if they could be identified. The only way to destroy the industry was to destroy the cities.It was not just bombing, the issue was fire bombing. I think it was Harris who advocated terror bombing in response for German terror bombing. Churchill initially resisted on moral ground and then agreed.
The bombing of Dresden, both Brits and Americans dropped incendiaries along with high explosives. The firestorm was horrific.
Or Curtis Le May on Japan, firebombing and firestorms.
If someone is out to kill you and your family do you defend yourself according to a set of moral rules, or do you do anything to save your life and family?
I didn't wish to be churlish but yes.FTFYThe Russian Black Sea fleet is not doing much at the moment. Might as welluselose them.![]()