"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

[Thumpalumpacus]

NATO states had shipped increasingly weapons to the Ukraine already before Putin's attack on February. This and the prevailing intention of NATO and the Ukraine viewing onto even a closer cooperation with each other, was what gave Putin the reason to justify his expansion dreams.

The shipment of weapons is found nowhere in Putin's justifications. Look at the fulminating speech he gave on the brink of the war -- no mention of NATO shipping weapons, only mention of Ukraine representing an existential threat and vowing to block its accession to NATO and reincorporate it into Russia.

So sorry, I disagree with you that this is germane to my point about arms shipments by a neutral being an act of war. It's not.

I suspect (I might be very wrong) Putin in his initial attack only used in vast majority secondary and conscript units (mixed with some elite units) hoping for an easy victory.
Continued weapon deliveries from NATO (if Russia holds a far more effective conventional force in reserve) might get him to use those and even achieve a broad consent in
doing so by the population.

Regards
Jagdflieger

The vast majority of Russian ground forces are conscripts serving one-year sente -- uh, enlistments.

 

[Jagdflieger]

The shipment of weapons is found nowhere in Putin's justifications. Look at the fulminating speech he gave on the brink of the war -- no mention of NATO shipping weapons, only mention of Ukraine representing an existential threat and vowing to block its accession to NATO and reincorporate it into Russia.

So sorry, I disagree with you that this is germane to my point about arms shipments by a neutral being an act of war. It's not.

No problem - Putin's agenda isn't restricted to just one propaganda speech - see: February 8th.

- Republic World

www.republicworld.com

The vast majority of Russian ground forces are conscripts serving one-year sente -- uh, enlistments.

So was IIRC the US Army during the Vietnam war - why they never send in the professionals (more then a million?) - I wouldn't know.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No problem - Putin's agenda isn't restricted to just one propaganda speech - see: February 8th.

- Republic World

www.republicworld.com

So was IIRC the US Army during the Vietnam war - why they never send in the professionals (more then a million?) - I wouldn't know.

Regards
Jagdflieger

I'm off to work right now but will answer this tonight. Have a great day!

 

[Jagdflieger]

I'm off to work right now but will answer this tonight. Have a great day!

You too - and spend some time on the related articles shown in the post - very interesting to see the "confidence" as apposed to what they actually did later on

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[GrauGeist]

NATO states had shipped increasingly weapons to the Ukraine already before Putin's attack on February. This and the prevailing intention of NATO and the Ukraine viewing onto even a closer cooperation with each other, was what gave Putin the reason to justify his expansion dreams.
I suspect (I might be very wrong) Putin in his initial attack only used in vast majority secondary and conscript units (mixed with some elite units) hoping for an easy victory.
Continued weapon deliveries from NATO (if Russia holds a far more effective conventional force in reserve) might get him to use those and even achieve a broad consent in
doing so by the population.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Putin's invasion of the Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO.

This all goes back to 2014 when the Ukrainian people ousted their current president and his cabinet, who were corrupt Kremlin puppets. Putin then moved into the Crimea and Donbas to "protect ethnic Russians".
Between the early 90's and 2014, the Ukraine had been receiving military aid and training from Western nations, so again, this has ZERO to do with NATO.

Any former Soviet satellite that hinted at wanting to be closer to the west, has come under Putin's attempt at "protection":
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine

This is all an attempt to regain former Soviet territory.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Putin's invasion of the Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO.

This all goes back to 2014 when the Ukrainian people ousted their current president and his cabinet, who were corrupt Kremlin puppets. Putin then moved into the Crimea and Donbas to "protect ethnic Russians".
Between the early 90's and 2014, the Ukraine had been receiving military aid and training from Western nations, so again, this has ZERO to do with NATO.

Any former Soviet satellite that hinted at wanting to be closer to the west, has come under Putin's attempt at "protection":
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine

This is all an attempt to regain former Soviet territory.

The present Ukraine war has everything to do with NATO - totally aside from his agenda of wanting to recreate the ex Czarist empire.
NATO undermined his intentions towards the Ukraine - but never ensured Ukraine's safety - as such they the Ukrainians are now paying the price for those sloppy just talking and weaseling Western NATO politicians.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So was IIRC the US Army during the Vietnam war - why they never send in the professionals (more then a million?) - I wouldn't know.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Peak troop strength in Vietnam was over 543,000, that was in 1968. Although the US maintained a draft during this period, you can't compare the typical draftee of the Vietnam era to Russian conscript of today. If you were drafted during the Vietnam era, you had 6 to 8 weeks of boot camp and then after that you received specialty training related to your chosen or assigned career field. Some of our members who were Vietnam War era veterans can expand on this.

My brother enlisted in the US Army during fall of 1966, after boot camp he went to jump school and was eventually assigned to the 101st Airborne. I know he attended several other courses related to combat training before he was deployed and although he was given ample leave on several occasions, he didn't arrive in Vietnam until January 1968, right at the beginning of the Tet Offensive. According to reports, the current Russian conscripts are poorly trained and equipped.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The present Ukraine war has everything to do with NATO - totally aside from his agenda of wanting to recreate the ex Czarist empire.
NATO undermined his intentions towards the Ukraine - but never ensured Ukraine's safety - as such they the Ukrainians are now paying the price for those sloppy just talking and weaseling Western NATO politicians.

Regards
Jagdflieger

And was it NATO's duty to proactively protect a non-member?

 

[Jagdflieger]

Peak troop strength in Vietnam was over 543,000, that was in 1968. Although the US maintained a draft during this period, you can't compare the typical draftee of the Vietnam era to Russian conscript of today. If you were drafted during the Vietnam era, you had 6 to 8 weeks of boot camp and then after that you received specialty training related to your chosen or assigned career field. Some of our members who were Vietnam War era veterans can expand on this.

My brother enlisted in the US Army during fall of 1966, after boot camp he went to jump school and was eventually assigned to the 101st Airborne. I know he attended several other courses related to combat training before he was deployed and although he was given ample leave on several occasions, he didn't arrive in Vietnam until January 1968, right at the beginning of the Tet Offensive. According to reports, the current Russian conscripts are poorly trained and equipped.

IIRC the peak strength of US forces in Vietnam was 750,000. But never mind how many, the point I was trying to make was that even though the US (if correct) had a million
full time professional army - 85-90% of those serving as grunts in Vietnam were draftees. Off course well equipped - but certainly not living up to the expertise or motivation
of a professional soldier.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Jagdflieger]

And was it NATO's duty to proactively protect a non-member?

That is something the politicians will need to answer for. Putin's Czarist ambitions had become absolutely obvious since his speech at the German parliament in December 1990.
As such no politician would be able to claim " I didn't know".
So IMO if one rightfully wants to protect/assist e.g. the Ukraine from Putin's agenda - then guarantees need to be given to Ukraine in the first place (many years ago) and a clear warning towards Putin as to what happens if he intends to use military force. And not just talk and weasel around after Putin placed his cards on the table.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[FLYBOYJ]

IIRC the peak strength of US forces in Vietnam was 750,000. But never mind how many, the point I was trying to make was that even though the US (if correct) had a million
full time professional army - 85-90% of those serving as grunts in Vietnam were draftees. Off course well equipped - but certainly not living up to the expertise or motivation
of a professional soldier.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1968).

https://post3legion.org/Vietnam_Statistics.pdf

As far as "not living up to the expertise or motivation of a professional soldier", that's debatable. For what conscripted Vietnam vets had to put up with in-country (and upon their return) they did very well, not so much supporting the mission, but to the survival of themselves and their fellow soldier. Their motivation was to survive their tour and get home as many of them saw they were fighting a politically winless war for a corrupt government who was relying on the US to do the bulk of their fighting. ARVN soldiers used to call the US "THE BIG PX."

My brother fought in Hue as the Tet offensive was winding down, his unit relieved Marines who were there and who took the brunt of the fighting. It was still pretty "hot" there although his unit was told that most of the fighting was over. Although Tet was a military victory for the US, my brother saw it as a victory of survival and could care less about what was considered a successful military counteroffensive (against a well motivated enemy)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That is something the politicians will need to answer for. Putin's Czarist ambitions had become absolutely obvious since his speech at the German parliament in December 1990.
As such no politician would be able to claim " I didn't know".
So IMO if one rightfully wants to protect/assist e.g. the Ukraine from Putin's agenda - then guarantees need to be given to Ukraine in the first place (many years ago) and a clear warning towards Putin as to what happens if he intends to use military force. And not just talk and weasel around after Putin placed his cards on the table.

Regards
Jagdflieger

As the Ukraine was NOT a NATO member, I see this as a moot point.

Was NATO responsible for Russia's incursion into Georgia as well? I think not.

 

[Jagdflieger]

As the Ukraine was NOT a NATO member, I see this as a moot point.

Spoken like a politician - sorry since it doesn't mirror the facts

Was NATO responsible for Russia's incursion into Georgia as well? I think not.

I am not sure right now as to what extend Georgia was trying to warm up to NATO and vice-versa - but I do recall that there was such an issue with Shevardnadze and Germany's foreign minister Genscher who were very fond of such an idea.
A solid intervention by NATO or the USA might very well have taught the becoming Czar a very early lesson and a Ukraine would never have happened.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[SaparotRob]

As the Ukraine was NOT a NATO member, I see this as a moot point.

Was NATO responsible for Russia's incursion into Georgia as well? I think not.

It's not at all NATO's fault but that is irrelevant to Pee Wee Putler's "reality ".
Under the mutual agreement to protect Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's nukes, can countries assist Ukraine, NATO member or not?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Spoken like a politician - sorry since it doesn't mirror the facts

It sure does! Bottom line, the Ukraine WAS NOT a NATO member - cold hard fact! In 2014 few people, if any could have predicted that Putin would attempt an invastion of the Ukraine!

I am not sure right now as to what extend Georgia was trying to warm up to NATO and vice-versa - but I do recall that there was such an issue with Shevardnadze and Germany's foreign minister Genscher who were very fond of such an idea.

And it never happened

A solid intervention by NATO or the USA might very well have taught the becoming Czar a very early lesson and a Ukraine would never have happened.

What kind of intervention? Military? Risk WW3???

 

[Jagdflieger]

It's not at all NATO's fault but that is irrelevant to Pee Wee Putler's "reality ".

Certainly not all

Under the mutual agreement to protect Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's nukes, can countries assist Ukraine, NATO member or not?

Off course, and not just now - already years ago that is exactly what these weasel politicians should have done - instead of just inciting/encouraging Putin with silly actions.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Certainly not all

Off course, and not just now - already years ago that is exactly what these weasel politicians should have done - instead of just inciting/encouraging Putin with silly actions.

Regards
Jagdflieger

So let me ask you - as a member of a European country, would you had been willing to go and fight or have one of your sons or daughters fight back then? Would you had been willing to risk a possible nuclear war? Same situation exists today.

 

[Jagdflieger]

It sure does! Bottom line, the Ukraine WAS NOT a NATO member - cold hard fact! In 2014 few people, if any could have predicted that Putin would attempt an invastion of the Ukraine!

This isn't about the Ukraine being a NATO member, it is about NATO inciting a Putin with stupid actions and as such providing him a reason to go for the Ukraine.
And as I said no politician can claim innocence toward Putin's goals since December 1990. He made it absolutely clear.

And it never happened

What never happened?

What kind of intervention? Military? Risk WW3???

Oh I see - now it is about (in the worst case) attacking a country that possesses nukes. A sudden no-go what a surprise.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[GrauGeist]

The present Ukraine war has everything to do with NATO - totally aside from his agenda of wanting to recreate the ex Czarist empire.
NATO undermined his intentions towards the Ukraine - but never ensured Ukraine's safety - as such they the Ukrainians are now paying the price for those sloppy just talking and weaseling Western NATO politicians.

Regards
Jagdflieger

I hate to say this, but that sounds almost verbatim for something one would read at RT.

And if you have already forgotten in the few weeks since Russia launched it's offensive, Putin invaded the Ukraine to liberate it from Nazis.

You can beleive what you want, but that doesn't change what's actually been going in since 1991.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This isn't about the Ukraine being a NATO member, it is about NATO inciting a Putin with stupid actions and as such providing him a reason to go for the Ukraine.

The only "incitement" I can see NATO do was expand. During the same time the west tried to bring Russia into the west economically and Russia seemed to be doing quite well until, as you say "the Czar" saw things differently

And as I said no politician can claim innocence toward Putin's goals since December 1990. He made it absolutely clear.

1990? Putin wasn't even thought of!!! The former Soviet Union fell in 1991. Boris Yeltsin was in power July 1991 – 31 December 1999. Putin didn't come into play until the late 1990s. Became Prime Minister in 2008 and President in 2012.

What never happened?

Georgia joining NATO

Oh I see - now it is about (in the worst case) attacking a country that possesses nukes. A sudden no-go what a surprise.

It should be, especially for the countries next door to the combatants!!! Would you do it?!?