NATO was originally a purely defensive alliance to deter a Soviet invasion of western Europe. With the end of the Soviet Union, NATO’s original mission no longer made any sense.
Instead of ending NATO, it was repurposed as an aggressive military pact. NATO has instigated wars in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Ukraine is the latest example.
NATO has become the world’s bully.
Looks like warmongering to me.
Western wokism still treating minority nations as lower class, just like they did to Vietnam after WW2
They aren’t inching, they are running full speed.
Estonia has been a member of NATO since 2004. The Estonian border is less than 100 miles from Saint Petersburg.
The US now has responsibility to defend hundreds of miles of border fence in Finland. Yay!
Of course US defense commitments don’t mean all that much. Finland should ask Texans how well the US defends its own borders.
Then NATO expansionism as a reason was complete nonsense
Imagine Putin taking 9 months and expending 100,000 soldiers (killed and wounded) to try and capture a single town…just to have Ukraine take back a large portion of Russia’s gain there in a few days.
Its insane.
…
“The situation on the flanks is developing according to the worst predicted scenario,” Yevgeny Prigozhin said in an audio message.
“All the territories that were taken with the blood and lives of our comrades over many months, advancing tens or hundreds of metres a day, are now being thrown away practically without a fight by those who should be holding our flanks,” he added.
Interesting. What is your opinion? Put aside the question of whether or not it could have succeeded*: would it have been a good idea to attack the Soviet Union immediately after WWII? Would avoiding the Cold War been worth it?
*-for the record, even with American help, I think the Soviets would have won. Even if China and Japan were brought on board. Allied victory for sure would have required multiple nuclear bombings.
I dunno but for lend lease do the Soviets even win the eastern front.
No, but we are talking the end of the war. 5 years of lend-lease already completed, and the war is won.
Seems Ukraine is attacking while saying it’s not the big attack. That’s to be expected. That way when they don’t get far they have an excuse. We’ll see by Monday!
Meanwhile, the west is saying it’s going to produce lots of weapons for Ukraine over the next year = MIC $$$$$ and endless wars.
My guess is that the counteroffesnive will come as lots of little probes along the whole front, making Russia react and forced to decide to move troops to defend different areas. Then if there weakness in a certain spot Ukraine will likely push in that area.
This is why Bakhmut is so challenging for Russia. They can either reinforce and weaken other areas, or risk a complete rout in that area.
What they are doing now they are doing with the forces that were already around Bakhmut. They have not engaged any of the offensive force they created for the offensive.
No big deal if Putin (or one of his successors) keeps it in his pants.
I thought we settled that months ago …
They gotta have some reason it makes sense to bomb, rape and torture…even if its logically incoherent.
USA cannot even control its own borders.
Well, of couse the One Horse Dog Face Pony Soldier is greeting future dimocrat voters waltzing across our own open borders.
A rout.
…
Moscow has acknowledged that its forces had fallen back north of the battlefield city of Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, in a retreat that the head of Russia’s Wagner private army called a “rout”.
The setback for Russia comes after reports of Ukrainian advances around the city and suggests a coordinated push by Kyiv to encircle Russian forces in Bakhmut, which has been Moscow’s main objective for months during the war’s bloodiest fighting.
That’s an interesting question. I think ultimately they would have won, because Germany’s ability to wage war was rapidly diminishing due to the losses imposed by the western allies. On the other hand, had Germany not had to expend so many resources fighting the US supplied Soviets, quite likely the western front would have gone much differently. It all would have taken much longer (and perhaps resulted in nukes being used) and cost the lives of millions more soldiers and civilians. I expect some military history geeks have analyzed that scenario thoroughly.
None of this, of course, is pertinent to this thread. Almost none of the geopolitical situation is the same.
well, a megalomaniacal fascist dictator in Europe has invaded his neighbor to protect people who speak his countries language (whether they wanted to or not) claiming that part of the country he invaded was historically his anyway.
so yeah, there are some similarities
