Ukrainian servicemen fire a 2S7 Pion self-propelled gun toward Russian positions, on a frontline near Bakhmut in Donetsk region, Ukraine, January 24. REUTERS/Oleksandr Ratushniak
* NATO leaders have been worried by the heavy casualties and massive ammunition usage in Ukraine.
* "The scale of this war is out of proportion with all of our recent thinking," NATO's top general said in January.
The heavy casualties and massive ammunition consumption seen during the war in Ukraine has top NATO commanders worried.
NATO was created in 1949 to stop a massive Soviet invasion of Western Europe, and it has added new members since the end of the Cold War, but many of its militaries shrank in the decades after the Soviet threat disappeared. Now the scale and intensity of the fighting in Ukraine has raised questions about the alliance's ability to fight a big-unit war against Russia.
"Scale, scale, scale," US Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, told a Swedish defense conference in January. "The magnitude of this war is incredible. The Ukrainians have 37 frontline brigades, plus dozens more territorial brigades. The Russians have lost almost 2,000 tanks. If we average out since the beginning of the war, the slow days and fast days, the Russians have expended on average well over 20,000 artillery rounds per day."
Read more ....
WNU Editor: And we have seen nothing yet. With 400,000 additional Russian soldiers now being deployed to launch a new offensive, we may soon see some of the biggest battles in Europe since the Second World War.
30 comments:
Popcorn is ready!
these generals are not suited to their tasks if they thought a modern war in Europe would be on a similar scale to patrols in some Afghan valley
Good the US is going to war with the USSR
Exactly, the Ukrainians are incredibly expendable, which is why they were chosen to fight this war for everyone else.
If the 400,000 recruits are are fearsome, when backed up by artillery as WNU puts out, then the US will have boots on the ground.
Also there is a price when political factions run a walking corpse for president and bastardize the executive branch. People like Putin think they have a green light. Both Russia and America will get savaged.
I blame Gerald Ford
Putin says losses in Ukraine are Out of Proportion to what he and his military were planning for.
What happened to Wendell Wilkie?.
It is what it is now. No changing that… Russia is now fighting a well armed cornered dog.
What? Did you think we were lying to you when we said it would be a bloody mess and the Russians would be forced to smash the ukranians?
No, since September, you were lost in your Ukrainian Ardenss moment of MSM delusion where the glorious 6th SS army was going to push the Russians back beyond the Kuban.
The majority of the everyday Ukrainians, guys like you and me, will be dead by April
You can blame Joe and the neocon BLOB in DC for that. This is what happens when people think they can push others around.
The Ukrainians are being played for suckers and the monsters in DC who are sending them to their death do not care.
Anyone using the word neocon is a lazy debater and no doubt dishonest.
8:02
Gee, that escalated quickly.
when policy fails, follow the yellow brickroad
9:45
Ok explain your assumptions that "neocon" usage = "lazy debater and dishonest". To castigate a point of argument by saying a word is worthless, needs proof.
You have done this before and not replies when the question was asked before.
"According to Lead Editor of e-International Relations Stephen McGlinchey: "Neo-conservatism is something of a chimera in modern politics. For its opponents it is a distinct political ideology that emphasizes the blending of military power with Wilsonian idealism, yet for its supporters it is more of a 'persuasion' that individuals of many types drift into and out of."
The term neocon or some of the people associated with it have been around since the 1960s. That is around or over 60 years. That is two generations.
It is like the Republican party. I went to my local county museum and found out that they flipped flopped in the 19th century on trade or immigration. They were for it. Then for 20 years they were against it. Then they were for it.
When you talk about a political movement and its ideology especially one that is nebulous, when you talk about it, you have to put a time stamp on it. Otherwise, you talk is meaningless except maybe as a ad hominem, which in my view you use it for.
Show me a nation that is not intervening. If they are small or weak, they try soft power. If they are middling or large they range farther afield.
It is not a matter if you try to influence something outside the borders of your country, but it is why and how.
Just because you don't try to influence anyone outside your borders does not mean they are not trying to influence you are others about you. Sticking your head in the sand does not work.
Very good and thank you.
In Mr McGlinchy' description of the term neocon he does not infer or state that anyone using this term is
Dishonest or
A lazy debater
As you had indicated.
This is also his own definition of what a neocon is and represents.
This is only one version.
First what is the difference between a traditional conservative and a necon..which of course is short for
New conservative.
Old line conservatives believed in a isolationist policy with foreign affairs and military intervention is a situation to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Example the writings of Patrick J Buchanan
Necons. These are the Billy Kristol and John McCain wing of conservativism. They realy care nothing for conservative social issues. Their main focus is foreign policy with an activist, interventionalist policy/ world view
They are not really republicans or democrats. They are modern day ideologues who use people and nations to promote their own agendas.
So when we speak of a neocon BLOB it is a fair description of a group of elites in DC who do not care about the average American. But will lay waste to any people or society that does not conform to their thinking.
How long ago were the Beirut bombings? So long ago that I had almost forgotten.
October 23 1983.
Semper fi
Eighth Regiment of Marines
Who are like McCain
A short list
John McCain …Lindsey Graham…Marco Rubio…Dick Cheney…George W Bush..Jeb Bush..John Bolton..Charles Krauthammer…Bill Kristol..Dennis Prager…Donald Rumsfeld…Nikki Haley…Mike Pence..Bill O’Reilly…Brian Kilmeade on the Republican side
Hillary Clinton (voted for every war)..Joe Biden (voted for every war)…Joe Lieberman (voted for every war)..Chuck schumer (voted for every war)…John Kerry (voted for every war)…Christoper Hitchens (after the cold war)…on the Democratic
Don't forget... frum, feith, Libby, qAbrams, Wolfowitz, Kagan, blinken and nuland. And a lot more. These freaks were instumental in steering usa foreign policy the last 20 year.
History
Scooter Libby? 2005
Paul Wolfowitz 3007
Current
Elliot Abrams Trump Admin
Robert Kagan
Blinken? NeoCon? With the Iran Deal? Are you kidding?
Here is something up your alley. You probably read it already. You probably authored it.
Meet Neocon "Doughnut Dolly" Victoria Nuland — Strategic Culture
Nuland is a neocon because she said "Fuck the EU"? Like the EU has been stalwart allies and not backsliders. That makes you guilty?
Russia poisoned an Ukrainian president back in 2004. That is just what we know. You bring up Maidan I will bring up that. I won't concede Maidan. what the Ukraine leader at the time did may not have been illegal, but it was against polling. Anyone check his bank account?
What did these neocons do? Iraq? Well Hillary and Kerry wanted to go in. They wanted to until they lost the election. Is Kerry and Hillary neocons? Sadam did break an armistice. If a great power lets a middling power break an armistice, you cannot let that stand or you are in deep shit.
Please be more specific
Your inference that since a neocon is not appointed to a few position that they lack influence is a flaw in logic.
Two.
These neocons have never seen a war they did not like.
They do not care about how many people they kill and their propaganda machine is incessant.
If you want to waste your tax money on overseas misadventures for the thinnest of reasons, go ahead.
But spare us your deluded crap, that these wars kept us safe or were good for humanity. More than half of these interventions would not have passed the Nuremburg war crimes test.
As for Ukraine. This is a war that is not ours, We have no vital interest in and yet. Nuland and the rest of the neocon forces in DC set it in motion.
If the war does finally involve the US, all we can hope for is that people like you will be the first to volunteer and be drafted.
That would be just.
"Your inference that since a neocon is not appointed to a few position that they lack influence is a flaw in logic."
You are incorrect. I included Kagan, He is a historian. As far as I know, he has been appointed to no position.
"They do not care about how many people they kill and their propaganda machine is incessant."
Sure buddy. The US developed smaller bombs during the Iraq War. During WW2 bombs becoming increasingly larger, up to 2,000 lbs or more. In Iraq they had the reverse process. collateral damage was not wanted.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2005/7/1/2005july-urban-fighting-highlights-need-for-smaller-weapons
In Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers would rather eat a meal with the locals and patrol together than shoot it out.
I'll note that this statement of yours is an ad hominem attack and does not address why there was a war in Afghanistan or Iraq.
If you want to waste your tax money on overseas misadventures for the thinnest of reasons, go ahead.
911 was not the thinnest of reasons.
"As for Ukraine. This is a war that is not ours, We have no vital interest in and yet. Nuland and the rest of the neocon forces in DC set it in motion."
Invasion of Poland that is their war not ours. Apparently, you play Risk like fool.
"If the war does finally involve the US, all we can hope for is that people like you will be the first to volunteer and be drafted."
I could get called up.
"That would be just."
It would be just that your supervisor realizes that you are convincing no one and you are dragooned into the Russian Army. There were 1,000 casualties in the Russian army today. You are needed.
When ever you are ready pal. The call of battle beckons us.
1000 casualties today.....yea sure , I guess the ghost of Kiev was in rare form.
4:16
You are either misinformed or being intentionally deceitful.
Kagan is not just an historian . He is a life long powerful political operative. A prime member of the neocon cabal in DC. He is still active, so are the rest you mentioned.
" They do not care about how many people they kill and their propaganda machine is incessant."
Sure buddy. The US developed smaller bombs during the Iraq War. During WW2 bombs becoming increasingly larger, up to 2,000 lbs or more. In Iraq they had the reverse process. collateral damage was not wanted.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2005/7/1/2005july-urban-fighting-highlights-need-for-smaller-weapons In Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers would rather eat a meal with the locals and patrol together than shoot it out.
To bad you missed it again. The main point is not how the military conducts wars or how the troops in the field fight.
IT IS ABOUT A GROUP of people...neocons/... who do not care how it is done or how many get killed ... but whether of not their ideological objectives are met... so how many die, they do not care. If it is a lot, that is fine, or a few, that's ok too.. they do not care.
Most of all. Stay focused and quit getting off track. Your points of argument do not address the main points of my argument. Therefore you are being intentionally misleading or not capable of coherent thought.
You deny the Neocons exist or do not favor wars?
The Invasion of Poland? What the hell does that have to do with the US. The Polish invasion was not a US issue then. It was a French and Brit issue.
We did not declare war on Germany...They declared war on us after we declared war on their ally Japan.
BTW Were you working at the green bean in 07?
IT IS ABOUT A GROUP of people...neocons/... (blah) (blah) (blah)
says the russian troll
You have not answered or argued basic items
Do you have to be a neocon to want to invade Afghanistan after 911?
Do you have to be a neocon to invade Iraq after the continually broke the armistice?
No, But you can be a useful idiot and fellow traveler.
Broke the armistice? When and how? With their non- existent weapons of mass destruction? Bull shit...even Colin Powell said he was lied to.
911, was Afghanistan worth 3 trillion dollars, thousands of lives, just to return to what it was before the war?
You are a dolt. I bet you think that somehow poland was an ally of the US in 1939.
Sorry skoda...it is not working for you.
But you are in the company of your peers with MAxy boot and hillary. Enjoy the company , before they eat you.
911, was Afghanistan worth 3 trillion dollars, thousands of lives, just to return to what it was before the war?
When you are attacked like in 911, you stay until you win. The consequences to doing otherwise are bad.
Now the US did not stay. I think pulling out was the right choice. It does not get rid of the we need to win argument. However Washington had no intention of winning, so leaving was best. only after we left did a number of people in Washington speak up and said we could not win with Pakistan stabbing the US in the back.
"You are a dolt. I bet you think that somehow poland was an ally of the US in 1939."
There is an argument for that, but you are not listening. You are just posting for propaganda purposes.
TY for the data points. Bracketing you is coming along nicely.
Post a Comment