TexasCHLforum.com

extremist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 10:21 am“Peace is possible,” he said. “The only question is what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory, how much independence, how much sovereignty…are you willing to sacrifice for peace?”

I believe the only appropriate answer to this question is to quote Robert Goodloe Harper. In 1798 he said "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

I agree 100% with TAM and BigGuy on the bombings, but I don't want to let the other revisionist paragraph go unaddressed. While there is some credit to be given to the Russians, it falls much more on the American and British troops. Russia could not have won anything against Germany if it were not for her two biggest allies - the US and the weather. We supplied a lot of the Russian arms used, not all but a lot. And Germany was certainly not prepared for the Russian winter.

Russia would never have even gotten into Germany if our troops had not been ordered to hold up and wait for the Russians to enter too.

And this does not mention the French and Polish exiles who fled to Britain and helped, or the many other smaller countries that also contributed. Defeating the Germans and the Japanese was a team effort that would have failed without the US being on the team. It could easily have failed even with the US if any of the other countries had not been there but the US was indispensable to it. And that was not just our military power, but also our industrial and economic power were necessary parts.

This story is interesting to me. It shows how the US Army Green Berets have been training Ukrainian forces since just after the Crimea invasion in 2014. It does mention teaching them how to build militias and a resistance group. I have faith that the Green berets know what they are doing in this kind of mission as it is their primary specialty. So, this helps explain to me how the Ukrainians have managed to hold off the Russians so well.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-arm ... in-ukraine

The two most interesting parts of it are the start and end dates of the training. They started in 2014, which means I finally have to grant Obama some credit for doing the right thing. He must have approved the deployment. And it ended in February, just before the invasion. Which is another thing to bash Biden for. He must have pulled the troops when the Russian build up started, knowing they would fight along side their trainees. I know there are political considerations that are above my pay grade, but it shows that he never had any intention of properly supporting the Ukrainians in this fight.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:14 pm https://news.yahoo.com/russia-ministry- ... 34417.html

Russian ministry of defense head hasn’t been seen in 12 days.

I think he has been convicted by his boss of the worst war crime of all - losing.

oljames3 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:13 pmThe Soviet model does not prioritize non-commissioned officer authority and training as does our model. I am both a graduate and instructor of the US Army advanced NCO training and officer training. Soviet model NCOs are little more than better-paid privates. The US model teaches and rewards low-level, individual initiative and adaptation, empowering captains and sergeants to win.

I was always taught this was what gave us a true advantage over the Russians in a conventional war. If you killed a US Army officer, there was always someone who would step up and take charge to keep the unit fighting. If you killed a Russian Army officer, the unit would freeze in place until a new commander was appointed. It makes sense to me that our way is better for combat effectiveness.

I notice one interesting thing about that shelled hospital. I could be wrong, but I do not see any holes in the walls of it such as would result from a direct hit. The destruction I saw looks more like concussion from near misses, such as hitting a building nearby or counter-battery fire against an artillery unit in the field next to the hospital.

Some of the apartment buildings nearby appear to have hits from light artillery, but only a few. That strikes me as someone was shelling a target nearby. Artillery is not always a precision weapon. Much as I cannot always put bullets in the same hole at fifty feet using a bench rest, a cannon cannot put its shells in the same spot every time.

Since the media is only showing the aftermath (for justifiable reasons), I am forced to admit that the evidence shows a possibility that Russia was telling the truth about firing at a military target and the damage is simply collateral damage from that.

I support Ukraine in this war, but I am also honest enough to admit that it is possible they put military targets near a hospital. Not directly using it as human shield type cover, but in an urban war it is hard to not have things happen like that near schools and hospitals. We built our cities that way.

Ruark wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:58 pmHe also said "if Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine." Not true. Russia's mission in Ukraine is twofold: to stop the persecution of ethnic Russians in the south and east, which continues as you read this, and to demilitarize the country, because of the threat it poses if it ever joins NATO. The goal is for Ukraine to become a neutral country politically, without militaristic aspirations like it has today. Zelensky is horribly inflaming the situation, pretending to be some valiant Joan of Arc hero, and making everything worse and increasing the destruction and suffering.

I disagree based on what is being reported out of Ukraine recently, plus reports from other countries and some slip ups that have been reported. I am not sure there was persecution of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, though I am sure that persecution depends heavily on the eye of the beholder. Were they killed for being Russian or were they killed while rebelling against the established government? If persecution of a part of nation's citizenry justifies a military invasion, can we expect Mexico to send their army into the southwestern US?

I am sure that part of the goal is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. I can see a fear of American troops being stationed on the Russian borders. But is that justification for an invasion? I don't see it that way but I support each countries right to determine its own path. If that threatens their neighbors, the neighbors might want to look at other diplomatic solutions. Putin could have tried to be more friendly towards Ukraine and supported them. Bring them into the Russian "sphere of influence" by economic and diplomatic support. Of course, Ukrainians may not have wanted this, at least in part because Russia has conquered them in the past and then refused to let it go until the fall of the USSR. It also does not address the fact that Belarus has already shown that they intend to take Moldova next, and the fact that Russia has threatened Finland and Sweden also.

If Russia wanted to "conquer" Ukraine, they could have easily steamrolled over it in a few days. They could have bombed Kiev into the stone age in a couple of hours. They haven't, simply because they're not interested in "acquiring" Ukraine in any way, shape or form. Russia wouldn't have Ukraine if you handed it to them on a silver platter.

Umm, if Russia could have steamrolled over Ukraine, why has it not finished conquering it yet? Seems like Russia is not quite as powerful as you think. Of course, the same question could have been asked about either Russia or the US in Afghanistan. If Russia wanted to bomb them into the stone age, it could have. There is little doubt in my mind about this. Except that Russia knows we would have then bombed them into the stone age, and China and Russia would then bomb us, and we end up with places like Kenya and Uruguay being the world leaders and technological masters after a couple weeks of nuclear war. There is no winner in a nuclear war. Russia not taking Ukraine on a silver platter ignores around 200 of the past 250 years of history. Putin wants to restore Russia to the size and influence of the USSR. And on a side note, based on reports of Russia's current economy, it appears it needs to conquer these other countries to improve its basic economy for its own citizens. There is more at play in this than just how crazy Putin is.

DISCLAIMER: I have not thoroughly studied the background of this war. I am basing a lot of my conclusions on internet based reports, both from formal and informal media. I also have a bias in favor of Ukraine due to my family heritage coming from that area.