View Single Post
Sitat av hemmeligegreier Vis innlegg
Ukraina er i ferd med å vinne. Jeg aner ikke hvor du har det du skriver fra. Det har ingenting med virkeligheten å gjøre.
Vis hele sitatet...
Man trenger ikke å støtte Russland for å se og påstå at Ukraina neppe kan vinne dette militært.

For å sitere to amerikanske yrkesdiplomater i Newsweek, Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win:

Last month Putin gave General Sergey Surovikin overall command of Russia's war in the Ukraine. Surovikin comes from the technologically sophisticated Aerospace Forces, but has fought on the ground in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Syria where he is credited with saving the Assad regime. Surovikin has stated publicly that there will be no half measures in Ukraine. Instead, he has begun to methodically destroy Ukraine's infrastructure with precision missile attacks.

Armies need railroads and while Sherman systematically tore up the tracks leading to Atlanta, Surovikin is destroying the electricity grid which powers Ukrainian railroads. This has left Ukrainian cities cold and dark, but Surovikin seems to agree with Sherman that "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."

Russia has now put its economy on a war footing, called up the reserves, and assembled hundreds of thousands of troops, including both conscripts and volunteers. This army is equipped with Russia's most sophisticated weapons, and contrary to much Western reporting, is far from demoralized. Ukraine on the other hand has exhausted its armories and is totally dependent on Western military support to continue the war. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley noted last week, Ukraine has done about all it can.

Once Ukraine's rich black soil has firmly frozen, a massive Russian onslaught will commence. In fact, it has already begun at the important transportation hub of Bakhmut, which has become something of a Ukrainian Verdun. We expect Bakhmut to fall and predict that without much more Western support, Russia will recapture Kharkov, Kherson, and the remainder of the Donbas by next summer.

As the West did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, we are stumbling into another optional, open-ended military commitment. Ukrainian troops are being trained in Europe. Western defense contractors are already maintaining Ukrainian military equipment and operating the HIMAR missile systems. Active-duty American military personnel are now in Ukraine to monitor weapons deliveries. As the Russian offensive gains momentum, we expect loud voices to call for sending ever-more advanced weapons and eventually NATO boots on the ground to defend Ukraine. These voices should be unambiguously rejected for many reasons. Here are a few.

Generations of Western leaders worked successfully to avoid direct military conflict with the Soviet Union. They recognized that, unlike Moscow, the West has very little strategic interest in who controls Donetsk. They were certainly unwilling to risk a nuclear war for Kharkiv. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and the alliance has no obligation to defend it. Nor has Putin threatened any NATO member, but he has made clear that any foreign troops entering Ukraine will be treated as enemy combatants. Sending NATO troops into the Ukraine would thus turn our proxy war with Russia into a real war with the world's largest nuclear power.

Some have presented this conflict as a morality play, between good and evil, but the reality is more complex. Ukraine is no flourishing democracy. It is an impoverished, corrupt, one-party state with extensive censorship, where opposition newspapers and political parties have been shut down. Before the war, far right Ukrainian nationalist groups like the Azov Brigade were soundly condemned by the U.S. Congress. Kiev's determined campaign against the Russian language is analogous to the Canadian government trying to ban French in Quebec. Ukrainian shells have killed hundreds of civilians in the Donbas and there are emerging reports of Ukrainian war crimes. The truly moral course of action would be to end this war with negotiations rather than prolong the suffering the Ukrainian people in a conflict they are unlikely to win without risking American lives.
Vis hele sitatet...
Ukrainerne lider store tap. En tidligere U.S. Colonel som nå trener ukrainske soldater uttaler til Newsweek:

"Bakhmut is like Dresden, and the countryside looks like Passchendaele," he said, referring to the German city destroyed by allied bombing in World War II and the infamously muddy and bloody World War I battlefield. "It's just a horrible and miserable place."

Ukraine closely guards its casualty figures, but its forces are believed to be suffering badly around Bakhmut.

"They've been taking extraordinarily high casualties," Milburn said of the units training with Mozart. "The numbers you are reading in the media about 70 percent and above casualties being routine are not exaggerated."

Despite their "tremendous morale," Milburn said the defenders "have an acute 'regeneration problem,' which means getting new recruits into the line as quickly as possible." This means those being thrown into the fight have little beyond basic training.

"Typically about 80 percent of our intake who are coming off of the line have never even fired a weapon before," Milburn said. "We've got our work cut out for us."
Vis hele sitatet...
Igjen bringer jeg ikke slike perspektiver på banen for å skape dårlig stemning, eller være "kontrær" i et ellers enig klima, men fordi dette er en alvorlig situasjon hvor man bør ha tilgang til så mange velbegrunnede perspektiver og fakta som mulig. Ikke minst bør man tenke over hva det er man gjør, og vite at man går dit man går med åpne øyne - noe annet er vanvittig. Som de to amerikanske diplomatene konkluderer:

Perhaps we are wrong. Perhaps there will not be a Russian winter offensive or perhaps the Ukrainian armed forces will be able to stop it. However, if we are correct and February finds General Surovikin at the gates of Kiev, we need to have soberly considered and honestly debated as a nation and an alliance the extent of our commitment to Ukraine and what risks we are willing accept to our own security.
Vis hele sitatet...
Mange hevder at den eneste løsningen på konflikten finnes på slagmarken. I mine øyne er dette galskap og krigsvanvidd og en enorm og uberegnelig risiko, noe begge sider innså under den kalde krigen, men som vi nå tilsynelatende har glemt. Andre understreker nødvendigheten av å finne en modus vivendi med Russland, og fred så snart som mulig, som Emmanuel Macron:

The West should consider how to address Russia's need for security guarantees if President Vladimir Putin agrees to negotiations about ending the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said in remarks broadcast on Saturday.

In an interview with French TV station TF1 recorded during his state visit to the United States last week, Macron said Europe needs to prepare its future security architecture.

"This means that one of the essential points we must address - as President Putin has always said - is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia," Macron said.

"That topic will be part of the topics for peace, so we need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table," Macron said.
Vis hele sitatet...
Slike uttalelser mottar naturligvis kritikk, som fra Joe Biden. Men det er ikke noe underlig i dette: Frankrike og USA deler naturligvis ikke interesser på alle punkter. Derimot er det i alles interesse at alle parter begynner å snakke sammen igjen.

Jeg glemte link til Macrons uttalelser: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ia-2022-12-03/

Jeg ønsker dessuten ikke her å starte noen krangel, som jeg synes vi har nok av for tiden, men å bidra med en liten skjerv i diskusjonen.
Sist endret av exocytose; 11. desember 2022 kl. 23:27. Grunn: Automatisk sammenslåing med etterfølgende innlegg.